Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Rail Travel

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to promote the use of rail travel. [34682]

The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): The best way to get more people to use trains is to make rail services more attractive to customers. Inviting the private sector to run the railways has, for the first time since the war, introduced strong commercial incentives to promote rail travel. That is already bringing additional services, extra investment and better customer care.

Dr. Spink: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since Prism took over running the London-Tilbury-Southend line it has introduced new initiatives to attract more passengers to the line, including station improvements, increasing personal safety by providing guards at every station, extending booking office hours, and even introducing new rolling stock? Does he agree that those are the types of initiative that we need to get more people

on to the railway, and that those initiatives with privatisation represent a good deal for the taxpayer, for passengers and particularly for the environment?

Sir George Young: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I am glad that the change in culture at LTS is already beginning to manifest itself and that we are already seeing the type of improvements that he has outlined. I am sure that his constituents and all who use the line will welcome the at least £14 million of investment in station improvements, improved car park and station security, better facilities for disabled customers, automatic ticket gates, closed circuit television and customer help points at all LTS stations. That is the new culture that the private sector is introducing into our railways.

Miss Hoey: Is the Secretary of State aware of the deplorable state of Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road stations in my constituency, even though some money has now been given through the safer cities programme? Is he aware that what the public are most concerned about—and the factor that is most likely to get them back on to our railways—is safety, and that the matter of staffing must therefore be considered? Will he tell the new privatised companies that staffing must be a priority, and that even if we manage to get the stations cleaned up, until there are staff at the stations people—and particularly women at night—still will not use them?

Sir George Young: I am interested to hear what the hon. Lady says, and I agree that safety is a key factor in winning back customers for the railways. If she examines some of the proposals made by those who have won franchises, she will find that they are putting more staff at the sharp end for precisely the reason that she outlined. One of the recent franchises—I think that it was Chiltern Railways—proposed to have more staff in the waiting rooms on the stations, and Gatwick Express is certainly putting more staff on trains. Safety is a key factor, and I hope that it will not be a source of disagreement between


Government and Opposition. Whether we are talking about the Underground or the railways, we want more passengers, and security has a role to play in that.

Sir David Madel: As for rail travel on the tube, is it not a fact that the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen has ignored the agreed disputes procedure in the current dispute? Is not my right hon. Friend puzzled as to why ASLEF is taking so long to reply to the invitation to go to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to try to get this matter sorted out so that my constituents can travel to work in a reasonable way?

Sir George Young: I very much regret that ASLEF has taken industrial action again today, which is causing unnecessary inconvenience to millions of commuters and Londoners. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) will respond to the invitation extended to her some time ago to deplore the strike. I very much regret that ASLEF has refused the invitation to arbitration extended by London Underground. I hope that it will think again, because many of the other unions have already come to a satisfactory agreement with London Underground and there is no reason why ASLEF should not do so as well.

Ms Short: Having walked from Euston to my office in Millbank with a very heavy bag, I can tell the Secretary of State that I hope that the strike will be settled as soon as possible. Are not his claims that rail use would expand under a privatised model belied by the statements in the Railtrack prospectus that
Railtrack income is unlikely to benefit materially from any increase in passenger use",
and that
opportunities for expansion of freight operations are limited"?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that while political bluster comes cheap, there are legal obligations to tell the truth in the prospectus? Will he now admit that it was an unforgivable act of political incompetence to throw vast sums of taxpayers' money at creating a rail system that is incapable of expansion at a time when congestion on the roads is growing inexorably?

Sir George Young: I listened with surprise to what the hon. Lady has just said because when she launched Labour's transport document, "Consensus for Change," she said:
There is little point in denouncing the present government's record.
I also regret that the hon. Lady did not take the opportunity that I extended to her a few moments ago to join me in condemning the strike action taken by London Underground train drivers. Her silence will not go unremarked.

Ms Short: I am worried about my feet.

Sir George Young: We are all worried about the hon. Lady's feet. If she used her influence to persuade ASLEF members to go back to work, her feet and those of everyone else would be spared much pain.
What matters for passengers is not Railtrack's statement, but the statement of those who are bidding for the franchise because they win the passengers. If she looks

at what they have said she will see that they are confident that they can dramatically expand the number of people travelling by rail.
The hon. Lady will have noted that English, Welsh and Scottish Railways has ordered 250 more locomotives for freight and that a number of operating companies are contemplating investment in new rolling stock. The picture is not so bleak as the hon. Lady would have us believe. She offers us a ticket to the past that no one will want to buy.

Rail Investment

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's estimate of future levels of investment in the United Kingdom rail network. [34683]

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): Investment in the rail network has been at record levels in recent years and is expected to rise following the privatisation of Railtrack and other rail businesses.

Mrs. Prentice: Will the Minister admit that privatisation has been an absolute disaster for the rail network in the United Kingdom and that the £500 million spent on reorganisation and lawyers' costs should have been spent on infrastructure such as the west coast main line? Is it not time for the Minister to recognise that the rail network should work for the public interest rather than for the fat cats on the railway privatisation train?

Mr. Watts: The Railtrack fat cats, as they are described, have committed themselves to spend £8 billion on the rail network in the next five years. Both Chiltern and Midland Mainline are buying additional rolling stock to provide extra services, while London-Tilbury-Southend and Prism are replacing two thirds of their rolling stock by November 1999, and through the cascading of modern rolling stock they will have replaced the other one third much sooner than that. The Labour party's record in government was not very good: in constant price terms, over four years, the average expenditure under the previous Labour Government was £924 million; over a comparable four years, from 1990–91 to 1993–94, expenditure under this Government was £1.35 billion—an increase in current prices of 46 per cent. I am not talking about lawyers, but about investment in rolling stock and infrastructure.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Did my hon. Friend hear the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) on the expansion of the rail network? Does he not have more confidence in the private sector's ability to raise investment for maintenance, improvement and expansion of the rail network than anything that he has seen emerging from the Opposition?

Mr. Watts: Of course I have much more confidence in the private sector than I do in the Opposition Front Bench. My hon. Friend will recognise new Labour, new danger.

Mr. Chidgey: Do the Minister's estimates include the investment needed to renew the 2,500 mark 1 carriages still in daily use around the country? He may recall that they were the carriages that the report on the Clapham rail


crash stipulated should be taken out of service by 1997. Will he instruct the franchising director not to issue any more franchises which do not provide for the renewal of mark 1 carriages within five years from now?

Mr. Watts: No such instruction is required. When inviting bids for the South East Trains franchise, the franchising director has said that a 15-year franchise requires a programme to replace the existing rolling stock. Moreover, it is clear from my answer to an earlier question that private sector franchise operators are volunteering to provide new rolling stock; they do not have to be forced to do so.

Driving Tests

Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the new theory test for learner drivers. [34684]

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I am confident that the new theory test, which has received wide support from motoring and road safety organisations, will improve road safety and reduce the accident rate among newly qualified drivers.

Mr. French: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the introduction of the new theory test, which will make an important contribution to road safety. Will he ensure that standards are kept high so that it is regarded as an important part of the preparation for driving? Will he further ensure that the test makes it clear to those taking it that speed is dangerous and that they must be careful in their first few months and years of driving?

Mr. Norris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement of the new theory test; his views are shared by all hon. Members and by people outside. He is right to say that if the theory test is to have any value it must be sufficiently stringent to ensure that new motorists are aware of the important issues that it covers, such as attitude, road awareness, road signs and hazard perception. The key to success is to indoctrinate people with the right attitudes to speed at a very early age. The tragedy is that 1,000 people a year die in accidents where the driver is between 17 and 25. The theory test addresses that key group.

Mr. Pike: Although the theory test is a move in the right direction, does the Minister agree that it fails to address the problem that in most parts of the country a driver can pass the test at 11 o'clock and at 12 o'clock drive on the motorway without any experience, because they cannot gain such experience as an accompanied driver before passing the test?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman identifies a worrying problem which he will appreciate is not capable of immediate resolution. If learner drivers are allowed on motorways, they will be a potential hazard not only to themselves but to other road users. However, it will be possible to develop interactive technology—some examples already exist—to enable us to give drivers experience of motorway conditions without necessarily exposing them to unwarranted danger.

Central Railway

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the impact on passenger rail services of the proposals of Central Railway plc. [34685]

Mr. Watts: We have received more than 13,500 representations in total, many of which refer to the effects on existing passenger services.

Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the managing director of Chiltern Railways has said that Central Railway's proposals are incompatible with the present level of passenger services and, indeed, with assurances given under franchise arrangements for the minimum level of passenger services in the future? Will he undertake to bring the order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 before the House as quickly as possible so that we can dispose of Central Railway's half-baked proposal and send it where it belongs—into oblivion?

Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has announced that he hopes to arrange a debate on the proposal before the House rises for the summer recess. I confirm that we have received a representation from Chiltern Railways about the effects of the proposed new railway on passenger services on the line. Central Railways should urgently contact Chiltern Railways to see whether the concerns that have been expressed can be allayed.

Mr. Soley: Is it not strange that a company which is already blighting property from the channel tunnel to the midlands is not, so far as I can make out, financially viable to pay the compensation that it will need to pay if the proposal does not get the go-ahead? I understand that it will have to pay compensation after a certain period has elapsed. I received a letter from it a few days ago in which it refused to answer that point. Is it not time to review the 1992 Act to stop companies going ahead with such proposals when they have neither the capital for the project nor the capital to pay for blighting compensation?

Mr. Watts: As this is the first substantial proposal to be introduced under the Transport and Works Act 1992, it may be a little premature to consider a review of the legislation.
From the date of the application made by the company it is obliged to meet the full blight provisions of the legislation. Anyone who feels blighted by the proposal is entitled to serve a blight notice. The hon. Gentleman—and the House in general—will have an early opportunity to decide whether or not the project should be allowed to proceed to public inquiries.

Sir Michael Shersby: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has received many representations from my constituents about the effects of the proposals on the environment, particularly problems arising from noise pollution?

Mr. Watts: I can confirm that I have received representations of the sort to which my hon. Friend refers.

Ms Short: I hope that the Minister will agree that it would be helpful to the House, and to the large number of


families whose homes are blighted by Central Railway's proposal, to know the views of the Opposition. The Labour party is strongly committed to getting more freight on to the railways, but believes that we would achieve far more by investing about £300 million to enable the west coast main line to carry lorry trailers—in what is known as the piggyback system—than by spending £3 billion or more on this new freight line. We doubt whether the project is financially viable, and we hope that the House will shortly take the opportunity to kill off the scheme, thereby relieving large numbers of families from the great fear of blight.

Mr. Watts: I thank the hon. Lady for clarifying at least one aspect of Labour policy.

Road Construction

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on motorway and major trunk road construction in each of the past three years at constant prices. [34686]

Mr. Watts: At constant 1994–95 prices, £1,479.4 million was spent in 1993–94, £1,459.9 million in 1994–95 and £1,254.2 million in 1995–96. These figures relate to the construction of all trunk motorways and all-purpose trunk roads.

Sir David Knox: In view of the congestion on motorways and major trunk roads, does the Minister agree that those figures fall short of what is required? Is he in a position to tell us the cost to industry of road congestion?

Mr. Watts: There is no absolutely accurate assessment of congestion costs, but many people will have heard the Confederation of British Industry estimate, which is in the range of £18 billion. As to the adequacy of the provision, my hon. Friend will be aware that decisions on priorities for public expenditure are taken by the Government looking at all competing claims in the round. It is the job of the Department of Transport to target the available resources on improving conditions where they most urgently need such improvement.

Mr. Allen: Anyone who gets stuck in congestion on our roads experiences the truth that the Conservatives have slashed central Government spending on road maintenance and new roads by a third, and have savaged local authority spending on the roads programme by a third as well—all to help pay for a puny pre-election bribe. Will the Minister admit to the House, and especially to Conservative Back Benchers queuing up for their bypasses, that the roads programme is a con? It includes 114 schemes, but only one scheme went ahead last year. Instead of such fantasies, will the Minister use his last few months in office to devise an honest roads and maintenance programme and then stick to it, so that the construction industry and drivers may have some certainty about the future?

Mr. Watts: It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to come up with what he calls an honest policy because the Labour party's policy as set out in "Consensus for Change" is to impose a moratorium on new road schemes and to scrap plans to widen the M25.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to me and explain how his views on a moratorium square with those of his party leader, who said in a speech on 4 July:
Part of our policy will be the upgrading of road and rail".

Mrs. Lait: What percentage of the past three years' spending on motorway construction has been funded by the private finance initiative and what percentage does my hon. Friend expect in the future? Is the Minister simplifying and speeding up PFI procedures so as to provide us with a good, modern road infrastructure?

Mr. Watts: In the past three years there has been little expenditure on "design, build, finance and operate" schemes because they were not in the pipeline. We now have 37 main trunk road schemes in the three tranches of DBFOs, and they will be carried forward much more rapidly using private finance than if they were procured conventionally.

Bus Travel (London)

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the total bus miles travelled in London in 1995; and what is his forecast for 1996. [34687]

Mr. Norris: London Transport Buses' estimate for 1995–96 is 204.4 million bus miles. Its forecast for 1996–97 is 207.6 million bus miles.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister not disappointed that the increase in proposed bus miles between this year and next is so small? Does he accept that it would help to improve bus use in London if bus lanes were strictly enforced, if bus priority measures at major junctions were rapidly improved, if the franchisees running those routes had good quality new buses, and if bus drivers were not under extraordinary pressure to work ever longer hours for ever lower wages? Would not those measures give confidence to bus operators and passengers in London?

Mr. Norris: I am delighted to hear what sounds to me like a broad endorsement of the Government's policy. It is particularly welcome from the hon. Gentleman. I always knew that a closet Tory was lurking deep beneath that unlikely—but charming—exterior.
No, I am not disappointed. On the contrary, I am delighted by what I stress is an increase not just in bus mileage but in passengers. That is a real success for the privatisation of London's buses, because it has occurred since then. The hon. Gentleman is also right about the need to keep the bus priority programme going. He will know that in our transport settlement it is one of the few programmes with increased resources precisely because we consider it important.
The hon. Gentleman is right about enforcement, too. Without that, much of the value of bus lanes will be lost. That is why we are trialling bus lane cameras in the Holloway road, an area that the hon. Gentleman knows extremely well.
On investment in the industry, I invite the hon. Gentleman to compare the record of investment by the largely municipally owned bus companies in 1984 and 1985 with investment in the past two years. He will find that it has risen approximately threefold.

Mr. Brooke: As the most significant handicap to bus travel is its unpredictability, can my hon. Friend, whose


championship of transport in London is widely admired, say how many projects will be financed by the £9 million that he is putting into bus development this year?

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in such matters. I cannot tell him the precise number of schemes, but the £9 million to be spent this year is accompanied by a further £9 million, which London Transport Buses will spend on bus priority. The benefits of that are being seen in my right hon. Friend's constituency. He is right that if buses are held up by congestion and are, as is so often the case, the victims rather than the cause of that congestion, we shall be unable to get the advantages of better public transport that he and I both want.

Railway Safety

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold urgent talks with the railway inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive to agree new mechanisms for monitoring railway safety. [34688]

Sir George Young: I am satisfied that the independent Health and Safety Executive already has appropriate mechanisms for monitoring railway safety. Provisional HSE figures for 1995–96 show that the number of passenger and staff fatalities on the railway was the lowest on record.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that, following privatisation, there is now a clear conflict of interests between Railtrack, which is responsible for safety, and the fact that it is also responsible for safety on behalf of the other companies? A difficult problem may evolve if the Secretary of State is not prepared to accept that fact and ensure that the HSE changes its way of working to reflect it.

Sir George Young: It is not necessary, because the Health and Safety Commission recommended a safety regime which took into account our belief that Railtrack should be privatized—and it has been implemented in full. Therefore, the clash of interest that the hon. Lady outlined does not occur.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the track suggested for use by Central Railway for its freight line in Ealing, North is regarded as totally unsafe for such a purpose and that the project will in any case be damaging to the health and safety of the people in the area and is not acceptable to them?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads answer a question about Central Railway a few moments ago. Like my hon. Friend, I have a potential constituency interest in the matter. I have therefore asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State to handle the matter in the House.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the Secretary of State's position on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)? Is it that a clash of interest has not taken place or that a clash of interest can never take place?

Sir George Young: The key point is that the Health and Safety Executive remains an independent safety

regulatory body with full enforcement powers. It sits above Railtrack and has all the powers that it needs to enforce safety on the railways.

Road Rage

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the number of road rage incidents in recent months. [34689]

Mr. Norris: I have received a small number of representations about road rage. My Department and the Home Office support recent advice to drivers by police and motoring organisations.

Lady Olga Maitland: Today millions of Londoners have been forced to abandon the Underground and to drive their cars to work. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the Labour party's friends in the rail unions are making road rage much more likely and that there are therefore increased dangers on the roads as a result of frustrated tempers, all because the Labour party will not condemn the strikes? Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we need to take firm action and have a clear policy in relation to the strikes?

Mr. Norris: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I condemn the strike because the union concerned has not exhausted the negotiating machinery, and other unions have accepted the deal that is on offer. Today, we are witnessing an outrageous piece of blackmail in London. I, too, would like to hear the Labour party condemn that sort of conduct. That having been said—

Madam Speaker: Order. The substantive question was about road rage, and I would like to hear the Government's view on it.

Mr. Norris: There are reports of motorists hitting each other over the head with starting handles in the 1920s. So far as we know, the only recent development is a convenient expression to describe an age-old phenomenon. There is no evidence that road rage is on the increase. Our advice to drivers is clear: to stay patient and calm, and not to act in an aggressive way, particularly if they are outraged on the road.

Mr. William O'Brien: Does the Minister accept that if we are to resolve road rage we must make the penalty fit the crime, particularly where killing is involved? People guilty of road rage should be penalised to suit the damage that has been done. Until that occurs, there will be further cases of road rage. Will the Minister support the campaign to ensure that people who are guilty of road rage receive the proper penalty?

Mr. Norris: It is appropriate that people who commit violent offences receive the appropriate penalty. I emphasise that this is not a matter of traffic law or a matter of regulation on the road; it is a simple matter of the application of the criminal law. I am sure that the courts will respond accordingly.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new road theory test will help to curb road rage, which in my youth would have been known as


temper tantrums? Does he agree that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's decision to select locations for the theory tests only on census figures is wrong? Should it not take into account constituencies such as mine, which has two higher education establishments—ancaster university and the University College of St. Martin's—here thousands of students want to take the test during term time and should not have to go to Blackpool, Preston or Barrow?

Mr.Norris: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her ingenuity in asking a supplementary to Question 3. More important, I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend on her birthday. If I were in a position to offer her a birthday present, I would do so, but as I am an uncustomed and curmudgeonly person, I am not sure that I can oblige. However, I shall look carefully at the situation in Lancaster. If there is evidence that we have misapplied the criteria that establish theory test stations, we shall act accordingly.

Transport Needs

Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to develop strategies for the more efficient management of Britain's transport needs. [34691]

Sir George Young: Greater involvement of the private sector and targeted public investment provide the key to a more efficient transport system.

Mr. Miller: Does the Secretary of State recognise the importance of the transport industry in my constituency? Does he recognise also that his policies have resulted in aging systems, aging trains on the network and the development of gridlock? Local authorities are unable to meet requirements because of Government policies. When will we have a coherent transport policy? Does the Secretary of State believe that the dogma of privatisation and deregulation is adequate for our transport needs?

Sir George Young: As to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, following completion of the Hooton-Ellesmere Port rail electrification, design work is being completed. Planning permission has been secured to provide greatly enhanced access to Ellesmere Port railway station direct from Westminster road bridge. There are several other schemes in the pipeline with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is familiar.
The hon. Gentleman will know that we published a few weeks ago a Green Paper that sets out clearly the Government's transport strategy. A few minutes ago, I heard criticism of the current roads programme from the Opposition Front Bench; it was clearly implied that it should be undertaken at a higher level. We want to know how that higher level would be funded.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that efficient management of air transport forms a part of Her Majesty's Government's overall transport strategy, particularly greater use of existing airports such as Luton, Stansted, Gatwick, Heathrow—hopefully with a fifth terminal—and Farnborough? The latter should have corporate aviation facilities; trying to turn RAF Northolt into an airport makes no sense.

Sir George Young: I know my hon. Friend's views about the matter, which are shared by some of our

hon. Friends in neighbouring constituencies. I understand that a meeting has been arranged with my noble Friend Viscount Goschen, at which they will have an opportunity to make their views even clearer.

Rail Management

Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for ensuring efficient strategies for managing Britain's rail network. [34692]

Mr. Watts: The Government's strategy is based on the successful privatisation of the railways, especially Rai ltrack.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister confirm that £500 million was spent on lawyers and consultants during the privatisation process? The result is a fragmented network in which profits come before passengers and shareholders before safety. How is that in the interests of efficiency?

Mr. Watts: On the contrary, there is no fragmentation of the network. It was decided as a deliberate matter of policy to keep the ownership and the management of the rail network in one set of hands—Railtrack's.

Mr. Waterson: When talking about efficient strategies for the rail system, will my hon. Friend describe the effect of rail privatisation on the level of public subsidy to passenger rail services?

Mr. Watts: The evidence of the first eight franchises to be let shows that, by the seventh year—which is the end of the normal franchise term—the subsidy paid to private operators will be less than one third of the grant paid to British Rail in the past year.

Cyclists

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cyclists were killed or injured last year in the United Kingdom. [34693]

Mr. Norris: Cycle fatalities are at one of their lowest levels since records began in 1927. Last year, 217 cyclists were killed and 25,081 were injured.

Mrs. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that those of us who have used bicycles as a means of transport for the past 30 years or so welcome his recent conversion? Is he aware also that many people are discouraged from cycling because it is a hazardous activity, as the figures demonstrate? What action will he take to ensure that the number of cycling accidents is reduced and, therefore, cycling becomes more attractive to more people?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady is right, and I commend her. I am sure that she was a cyclist long before me. I did not mean to imply that she is older than I am—few hon. Members are older than me. I am sorry, Madam Speaker. not a word will pass my lips. I may not have long to go, but I am going to stick with what I have got.
A key feature of the national cycling strategy, which will be produced on 10 July, will be to try to make cycling safer in respect of the mileage travelled. The hon. Lady is


right; people will be prepared to cycle only when they feel safe on the roads, especially in a city such as London. There is still much that we can do to make cycling safer. We are spending money on it and we will no doubt be able to afford to spend a lot more in future because the programme is still in its infancy.

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend will know from his experience of cutting up and down the roads of London on his bicycle that the attitude of motorists is the biggest cycle safety problem. Will he therefore consider raising the profile of explaining to motorists the danger that they create for cyclists? Will he consider using my 1993 Cycling Safety Bill as one way—and only one way, and possibly not the best—of ensuring that motorists pay due regard to cyclists, who are their fellow road users?

Mr. Norris: It is kind of my hon. Friend to mention my cycling experience, although all I seem to get is obscenities from London taxi drivers. He is right; the major problem is the attitude of motorists. We must tackle that not only by physical measures on the road but by education—-not only of cyclists but, more important, of drivers.

Socially Necessary Rail Services

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received in the past 18 months on the subject of socially necessary railway services; and if he will make a statement. [34694]

Mr. Watts: Since the beginning of January 1995, my Department has received some 6,500 letters about subsidised passenger railway services, mostly from members of the general public.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply. May I remind him how vital some rural lines are? The most popular and vital services are not necessarily those that make the most profit. Two lines in a sparsely populated area of my constituency, the Conway valley line and the Cambrian coast line, are vital to the local economy. Will he ensure that socially necessary services are preserved and enhanced?

Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that every passenger service requirement has protected every station and line currently served by British Rail. He will have noted that, in the letting of franchises, service levels, far from being diminished, have been maintained and enhanced. He can have every confidence that the services that are so important to him and his constituents will be safeguarded under privatisation.

Mr. Mans: My hon. Friend knows that one of the most socially and commercially necessary lines in the country is the west coast main line from Euston to Glasgow. Will he ensure that he puts all the Government's efforts behind those who want the line to be upgraded at the first opportunity?

Mr. Watts: Yes. My hon. Friend will know that Railtrack is already progressing the core investment programme to restore standards on that line and is in discussions with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and my Department on upgrade options for it.

Mr. Bayley: Does the Minister realise that the early passenger service requirements required private operators

to maintain 90 per cent. of the service on their lines, but that the new passenger service requirement for cross-country trains allows all four daily trains that originate from York to be axed and shortens the journeys for three of the remaining seven services by excluding any transport south of Birmingham? How can that be efficient and protect the needs of travellers from York to the south coast and the south-west?

Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that every franchise is of a similar character. Those which have protection close to the existing service levels are those that contain the highest proportion of socially necessary services, while those that specify services at a lower level are those where the majority of the services are commercial. That is the difference between inter-city and regional services and it has been reflected in all the franchises that have been let so far.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in London, the socially necessary lines are those provided by London Underground? Will he therefore welcome the fact that GEC Alsthom will later this year start delivering 106 new trains to upgrade the Northern line? Will my hon. Friend contrast that policy of improving public transport in London with the silence of Opposition Members, who seem to be more concerned that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen should sponsor their constituency parties than about the disquiet and suffering of their constituents?

Mr. Watts: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend on every point that he has raised except one: I do not accept that London Underground delivers all of the socially necessary services in London. Many such services are provided by heavy rail. As for my hon. Friend's central point on the silence of the Opposition in the face of a blackmailing strike in the underground system, their silence speaks much louder to the people of London than—

Mr. Skinner: We support shorter working hours.

Mr. Watts: I hear the voice of new Labour from the Opposition Bench below the Gangway in support of the strike.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Her Majesty's Stationery Office (Contract)

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the preparation of the new contract with HMSO. [34712]

Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): As I announced on 22 May in a written answer, Official Report, column 191, a copy of the draft contract between the House and HMSO for the provision of printing and publishing services was placed in the Library on 4 June. Discussions with HMSO to finalise


certain outstanding details are now approaching completion, and it is expected that the contract will be signed before the end of July.

Mr. Greenway: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to assure the House that HMSO will be paid in full for the contracts into which it has entered to supply education materials to the agencies of some foreign Governments? Will it be paid in full, or will it not?

Mr. Beith: I cannot comment, because that is not a matter for the Commission. It is not something over which we have any control.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the right hon. Gentleman absolutely certain—can he give an undertaking to the House—that any such contract will protect the interests of Members, and the public interest in the control of parliamentary papers, which is fundamental to the working of the House?

Mr. Beith: Yes. You, Madam Speaker, set out in a letter that was printed in Hansard the basis on which the House authorities needed to be satisfied. Officers of the House have gone to great pains to ensure that the conditions set out in that letter are satisfied in the contract. As far as it is possible to do that, I believe that the House authorities have satisfied the obligation.

Child Care Voucher Scheme

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the cost of the child care voucher scheme for Commission employees. [34714]

Mr. Beith: The scheme was introduced on 1 April 1995. Expenditure on child care vouchers to date is £58,877. Fifty staff have participated in the scheme since its introduction.

Mr. Corbyn: Given the limited number of staff who have benefited from the scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Commission cannot undertake a survey of all staff and others employed in the building to ascertain the need for on-site child care facilities? It is nonsensical that a very large number of people are employed in this building and that their employer is way behind any other large employer in London or anywhere else. Employees have no child care facilities, yet they are desperately needed. The provision of such facilities would send out a signal that we are serious about looking after people who have small children, people who sometimes cannot get to the House because of the illness of their children, for example, or because there are no facilities for their children in other workplaces, which there ought to be.

Mr. Beith: The Commission ensured that a survey was carried out, and a full review, the results of which suggested that the child care voucher scheme was meeting many of the requirements of those employed by the Commission. Indeed, there was no evidence that a larger number of people would have their requirements met by on-site facilities.
The wider question of whether we should have a creche on the premises is one on which the Commission has regularly sought the advice of the relevant Committees—the Select Committee on Accommodation and Works and the Select Committee on Administration—both of which have regularly pointed to the difficulties of providing such a facility. The Commission continues to review the possibility and would in principle be happy to see such a facility available to the staff it employs.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Bearing in mind the old adage: people should put their money where their mouths are, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many hon. Members ask the House authorities to issue child care vouchers at the expense of their office cost allowance?

Mr. Beith: That question would have to be directed to the Leader of the House, but it is a useful reminder that Members of Parliament could use the office allowance to extend the child care allowance to their staff. If hon. Members feel that the office allowance is inadequate for that purpose, opportunities might arise later in the week to raise the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

East and West Coast Main Lines

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public money has been spent on upgrading and modernising the rolling stock and railway infrastructure of the (a) west coast and (b) east coast main line over the past decade. [34695]

Mr. Watts: East coast main line electrification was completed in 1991 at a cost of £515 million at 1991 prices. The west coast main line was electrified in the 1960s and 1970s. and some £200 million was spent on new traction on that line between 1987 and 1990.

Mr. Prentice: Is not it a national disgrace that so much public money has been used to modernise the east coast main line, which was virtually gifted to the American company Sea Containers, yet the west coast main line has been starved of investment? We have clapped-out rolling stock driven by puffing billies. The Minister, in answer to an earlier question, talked about improvements to the track. The bids are out for the franchise this Friday, and I would like an assurance from the Minister that, whoever wins the contract to run trains on the west coast main line, new trains—high-speed trains—will be introduced at the earliest possible time on that vital link between the north-west and London.

Mr. Watts: Investment in the east coast line was not gifted to an American company. The investment was in track, power supplies and signalling, which is now in the ownership of Railtrack, for which the taxpayer has just received £1.9 billion, and in rolling stock, which is owned by the rolling stock companies, which were also sold for some £1.9 billion.
Part of the reason for issuing invitations now for the franchise of the west coast main line service is so that potential operators—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: More delay. Always delay.

Mr. Watts: No, not delay, as the hon. Gentleman suggests from a sedentary position.
Part of the reason for issuing invitations now is so that potential operators can take part in the decisions that will have to be made shortly about upgrades of line performance over and above the core investment programme to which Railtrack is committed from its existing income.

Public Transport (London)

Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for improving public transport in London. [34696]

Mr. Norris: The Government's plans for improving public transport in London were set out in the recently published transport strategy for London.

Ms Jackson: I thank the Minister for that reply—albeit it is 17 years too late. Does he agree that dial-a-ride is a vital part of public transport for Londoners with disabilities? Does he also agree that the number of complaints about the service that is now offered to users of dial-a-ride is increasing? Will he therefore reconsider his refusal to meet one of my constituents—a user of the service—so that he might meet some of those who are so dependent on it and hear at first hand their complaints and discover a way to improve such a vital service?

Mr. Norris: I make two points to the hon. Lady. First, it ill becomes her to talk about investment in London Transport. I remind her that, in 1978, the last year for which her party was responsible—I am talking now in 1996 prices—total investment in London Transport and London Underground was £203 million. The figure this year was £1,102 million—more than five times as much in real terms.
Secondly, the hon. Lady should know—I suspect that she is too busy with her ASLEF activities to have noticed—that we have protected the budget for dial-a-ride. The budget is ring-fenced within London Transport. It has grown consistently in real terms over recent years and dial-a-ride provides in London the best service for disabled users of any comparable city anywhere in the world. I know of the hon. Lady's constituency case. I have told her that I cannot meet her constituent because I have an obligation to many other users of dial-a-ride, but I am always willing to hear constructive suggestions on how to make the system work better.

Sir Michael Neubert: Will it surprise my hon. Friend if I point out that one way in which to improve public transport in London would be to establish passenger high services on the River Thames, a greatly underused highway through our capital city? Can he offer any prospect of progress on that front?

Mr. Norris: I can indeed. As my hon. Friend knows, I established a working party to examine the viability of passenger services on the Thames two years ago. That working party has stimulated a good deal of activity on the river, and the Port of London Authority is currently organising a proper auction of available pier slots to determine how a viable service might be provided.

Traffic Reduction

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to reduce the amount of traffic on United Kingdom roads; and if he will make a statement. [34697]

Sir George Young: The Green Paper "Transport: The Way Forward" sets out our view of the measures needed to manage traffic growth.

Mr. Cohen: Is it not time for significant traffic reduction measures? I have here a copy of the Japan Times, which describes United Kingdom roads as a "gridlock to nowhere". Japan's traffic derives from business and full employment, but we have no such excuse; our traffic throttles business and work. Should not direct measures be taken to improve public transport, cut fares—rather than increase them as the Government have—and keep cars out of city centres?

Sir George Young: Only a couple of minutes ago, we heard an excellent recitation from my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London about the substantial investment that has been made in London's public transport. If the hon. Gentleman examines the situation in London, he will see that we are not investing a great deal in new roads, but that we are investing substantially in the Jubilee line, the Heathrow express, the channel tunnel rail link and Thameslink 2000. We are making much faster progress now than we have for many decades, and we are doing it with private finance. What we do not hear from Opposition Members is how on earth they would maintain that momentum without the partnership that we have created with the private sector.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

Sessional Spill-over Period

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the merits of the spill-over period in the sessional cycle. [34715]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): A spill-over is on occasion necessary to complete the Session's business, and has been in recent years.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend will appreciate the special reasons for the spill-over period to be examined in the lead-up to the general election, but does he agree that such an inefficient, outdated system would not be tolerated in any other walk of life? Will he give an undertaking to consider whether that system should be among those subjected to critical examination during the welcome reforms of our procedures?

Mr. Newton: Given the inevitable uncertainties relating to the time that it takes to complete some business, I think that some form of flexibility is needed in the arrangements for a parliamentary Session, but I certainly accept the desirability of having no spill-over


period if that can be achieved. I am glad to say that I expect a shorter spill-over this year than has been customary in recent years.

Mr. Winnick: In the spill-over period, would it be possible to give the British people what they want—an autumn general election?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman might like that, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we have a mandate to continue to govern the country, and we intend to do so.

Mr. Wilkinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's sympathetic response to the wise representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes). From every point of view, would it not make more sense for the House to rise earlier—towards the beginning of July—so that hon. Members could spend more time with their families, and to reconvene at the beginning of October, with no spill-over period? That would be a much more logical and effective way of doing business.

Mr. Newton: I intended my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) to be sympathetic, but the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) would lead to another difficulty—unless he really wants the House to sit during the party conferences. That would involve some obvious problems. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I see that that idea is attractive to Labour Members. I would not want to go to their party conference either.

Illegal Drugs

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Lord President of the Council what actions the ministerial group on tackling drugs together has taken in respect of the methods of sale of illegal drugs. [34716]

Mr. Newton: The ministerial sub-committee of the Cabinet on the misuse of drugs, which I chair, is responsible for co-ordinating the Government's national and international policies for tackling drug misuse. All aspects of the Government's "Tackling Drugs Together" strategy, which focuses on illegal drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, are kept under regular review by the sub-committee. Action is taken to address other drugs of misuse as and when appropriate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Given that, in some circumstances, the sale of amyl nitrates might be deemed illegal—particularly when sold to those under 18—are the Government considering further enforcement measures involving such sales, or even their proscription?

Mr. Newton: I have been made aware of the fact that the hon. Gentleman is in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health about a particular case that has arisen in his constituency,

or which has been drawn to his attention by a constituent. The problem to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention is being carefully examined.

Statutory Instruments (Scrutiny Procedure)

Mr. Steen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of present scrutiny procedures of the statutory instruments passed since January 1994. [34717]

Mr. Newton: I think that our procedures for scrutinising statutory instruments are generally effective but, of course, we are always willing to consider suggestions for improvements. The Procedure Committee's recent report on delegated legislation contained many interesting ideas and, on Thursday, during the debate on parliamentary procedures, there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to express their views.

Mr. Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the cost to industry of the 8,098 statutory instruments that have been passed by the House since January? Is he aware that the cost of implementing those 8,098 statutory instruments is £8.75 billion and that only 643 statutory instruments have been repealed? As the Government are committed to deregulation, just as I am, does my right hon. Friend agree that some improvements are called for before the general election?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend refers to activities that have gone ahead under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. I understand that he would like to see further and speedier progress but, inevitably, it has taken time to build up. I hope that he will acknowledge that many of the statutory instruments to which he refers—for example, the many that are concerned with social security—do not, in the sense in which he means it, impose costs on industry.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Lord President agree that one of the problems in scrutinising and debating the merits of statutory instruments is that, of late, primary legislation has been much more framework legislation than of yore, so the importance of statutory instruments and their impact on industry, to which the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) referred, are much greater than before? Should not the Government look to the drafting of legislation that is less of a framework and more precise and in greater detail when it is first presented to the House?

Mr. Newton: I certainly agree that it is right to seek to improve the quality of the drafting of primary legislation. I have been seeking to advance that by publishing more Bills in draft so that practitioners may have a proper opportunity to look at them before they are presented to the House. Beyond that, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but, equally, I understand the difficulties—for example, the pressures on parliamentary time. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity, should he catch your eye, Madam Speaker, to develop his thoughts further in Thursday's debate.

Orders of the Day — Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,

That the Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order. namely, New Clauses relating to Part I, amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 103, Schedule 1, New Schedules relating to Part I, New Clauses relating to Part II, amendments relating to Clauses 104 to 117, New Schedules relating to Part II, New Clauses relating to Part III, amendments relating to Clauses 118 to 125, Schedule 2, New Schedules relating to Part III, New Clauses relating to Part IV, amendments relating to Clauses 126 to 139, New Schedules relating to Part IV, New Clauses relating to Part V, amendments relating to Clauses 140 to 145, Schedule 3, Clauses 146 to 149, New Schedules relating to Part V.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

New clause 11

HOUSING GRANTS: THE AGE OF THE PROPERTY

'.—(1) A local housing authority shall not entertain an application for a grant in respect of premises provided (by construction or conversion) less than ten years before the date of the application, unless—
(a) the application is for a disabled facilities grant, or
(b) the application is for an HMO grant in respect of a house in multiple occupation provided by conversion.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (I) so as to substitute another period for that specified.'.— [Mr. Clappison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 17.

Mr. Clappison: The joint effect of amendment No. 17 and new clause 11 is to remove the 10-year age requirement as a condition of grant for houses in multiple occupation that are provided by conversion. We accept that, in terms of the 10-year condition, houses in multiple occupation are a special case.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: The new clause, which responds to one that we moved in Committee, makes a great deal of sense. Houses in multiple occupation are often in poor condition. They form some of the worst housing in the country and present some of the most life-threatening conditions. It is vital that action is taken to remedy that. Often, because of the way in which the conversion takes place, the property has been brought into multiple occupation fairly recently, so the 10-year limitation, which would apply otherwise and is perfectly sensible other than in respect of disabled facility grants, where the Government already accept the need for an exemption, would be unhelpful. We are pleased that the Government recognise the logic that we advocated in Committee, so we welcome the new clause.

Mr. Chris Davies: I welcome the general tone of the new clause, which is

helpful, but I draw the House's attention to subsection (2) and the power that it gives to the Secretary of State, rather in the way referred to during questions to the Leader of the House. It enables a Secretary of State, at a whim and with a parliamentary majority, to substitute almost any period that he or she may wish for the time specified.
No doubt the Secretary of State, in keeping with the views of the House, would always act reasonably and ensure that any amendment was in keeping with what the Minister intends today, but, in practice, this is a good example of broad drafting that can allow massive changes later. Unwritten rules and conventions, which many of us follow as a matter of course, can so easily be torn up if the political complexion of the Executive decides that that should be the case.
I lost my position as chairman of housing in Liverpool when a Labour administration came in, with its strong bias towards the militant tendency. Those unwritten rules were torn up immediately. The administration took full advantage of broad drafting of this sort in the council's policies. Within days, policies that we would have expected to continue for many years were completely revised, without the council's full endorsement. Much the same can happen to laws with such broad drafting. Ministers are keen to respond to points made in the House and say that they would not dream of giving the Secretary of State undue powers, but this new clause gives the Secretary of State, of whatever political party, just that sort of authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 3

PUBLICATION OF DISABLED FACILITIES GRANT PROCEDURE

'A local housing authority shall publish information in accessible formats clearly outlining the procedure for applying for a disabled facilities grant in their area.'.—[Mr. Chris Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 11, in clause 19, page 11, line 25, at beginning insert—
'( ) The local housing authority shall ensure that an applicant shall be able to apply for a disabled facilities grant as soon as is reasonably practicable after making an initial enquiry either to the local housing authority or the social services authority.'.
No. 12, in clause 24, page 14, line 20, at end insert—
'(3A) Where the local housing authority is not itself a social services authority, the two shall agree jointly as to who will act as the principal point of contact for enquirers and applicants for a disabled facilities grant.'.

Mr. Davies: I hope that the House will regard this as a reasonable and constructive new clause. Applying for disabled facilities grants can be complicated. Some elements of the grant are mandatory, others discretionary. Although the housing authority would normally be responsible for ensuring the smooth processing of applications, inevitably, social service departments will be brought into the process. Because of the nature of local government, that may involve more than one local


authority at a time. In such circumstances, there is always a risk of disabled persons being caught up in a bureaucratic system that prevents them from gaining access to the grants that every hon. Member would wish them to have.
The Department of the Environment has undertaken its own evaluation of disabled facilities grants and has recognised the problem that I highlight in the new clause. In its reports, it has recommended that simple leaflets giving information should be published. I hope that that includes versions in Braille as well as in hard print, so that the needs of all disabled people will be met.
One of the problems is that, although, normally, I would wish local authorities to respond to that in the way in which good local government is expected to do, and to meet the needs of its citizens, that is not happening in each and every case. Frankly, some local authorities are not getting their act together when it comes to ensuring that departments are working closely and in co-ordination, and that disabled residents are getting the information that they need.
I ask the Minister, therefore, to consider the new clause positively and to take my point, which is that, in relation to disabled persons, it is not inappropriate for the House to lay down certain minimum standards.

Mr. Clappison: New clause 3 would require housing authorities to publish details of the procedures for applying for disabled facilities grants in the authority's area. That is not necessary, because authorities are already able to provide information to potential applicants.
The Department's grants literature, which authorities distribute to potential applicants, already sets out full details of grants, including information about how to apply and where to obtain help and advice before commencing works. That literature will be updated in readiness for the introduction of the new grant regime.
Authorities are also encouraged to operate preliminary inquiry systems to help people understand how their application will be processed by the housing authority and how grant, if any, will be assessed. Many authorities have set up their own advisory services to provide advice to potential applicants and answer queries. That helps to ensure that any uncertainty in applying for grant is removed and applicants therefore have a clear picture of the application process.
In addition, home improvement agencies also provide a valuable service in helping elderly and disabled applicants and those on low incomes through the difficult task of arranging for works and obtaining finance to meet their share of the cost of works.
I believe that those arrangements already ensure that applicants receive the right information on the procedures for making an application for disabled facilities grant, and I do not consider the new clause necessary.
I heard the arguments of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) about social services and housing authorities. I am aware of the reports to which he referred. As we made clear in Committee, we

are looking into the way in which social services' advice and input into the system is organised. It is appropriate that decisions remain with the housing authority and that it works together with the social services authorities in the way that I have described.

Mr. Davies: That is an inadequate reply. It does not even tackle the problems that the Department mentioned in its reports, which said that the system that the Minister described is not working, although he implied that it was. Would he at least meet me half way, by placing some guidance in the guidelines that the Department of the Environment produces when the Bill reaches the statute book?

Mr. Clappison: We made it clear in Committee that we would consider the problems that arose in respect of the social services organisation of, for example, the occupational therapy service and the part that it plays. We think it appropriate for the housing authority to be the main authority responsible for the grant system.

Mr. Davies: That answer is thoroughly inadequate and disappointing, but rather than taking the time of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 5

POWER TO SPECIFY MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF GRANT

'.—(1) A local housing authority may specify the maximum amount of grant it will pay in respect of an application for a grant, which shall he determined in accordance with the terms and conditions of its private sector housing renewal strategy.

(2) A local housing authority may make different provisions for different types of grant, or for the same type of grant in different c ircumstances.'.—[Mr. Chris Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in clause 33, page 19, leave out lines 24 to 40.
No. 8, in page 19, line 31, leave out from 'grant): to end of line 38 and insert
`there shall be no maximum amount of grant to be paid if the application is approved.'.
No. 72, in page 19, line 39, leave out from 'not' to 'pay'.

Mr. Davies: The new clause gives local authorities flexibility to tailor their private sector renewal strategies to meet the circumstances that they encounter and to tackle unique and individual problems. It does not conflict with the prime purpose of the Bill and has no public expenditure implications, because the overall amounts allocated to housing authorities are strictly controlled by central Government, and any flexibility within that will be within the overall guidelines.
The new clause will enable local authorities to determine how that money is best spent in their districts and boroughs. In some cases, they could consider


widening the scope of grants and enabling more people to qualify for grants each year, by setting the maximum grant at a lower level than the Minister might otherwise recommend. It would also enable local authorities to tackle particular circumstances by raising the grant to a higher level, but as fewer residents would qualify for grant in such circumstances, it would be a step that they would take only with reluctance. There will be instances in which that flexibility will be useful, particularly when large properties require modernisation and renovation, and when the needs of large families, perhaps of ethnic minority groups, must be catered for.
I ask the Minister to consider the new clause carefully and to recognise that it does not affect the overall tone of the Bill in any way; it will ensure that the Government's objective of ensuring that money is wisely used is implemented properly.
I ask the Minister to remember that when it comes to judging the circumstances in any one area, the local housing authority there is almost certainly in a better position than the Secretary of State to determine the most appropriate fine-tuning.

Mr. Clappison: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but I do not think that he has done justice to the framework set out in clause 33, particularly the wide measure of discretion that it gives to local authorities. As he well knows, that is an important aspect of the purpose of the reforms.
Clause 33 restates the power of the Secretary of State to impose a grant limit on both mandatory and discretionary grants. The important point is that we intend to retain a grant maximum of £20,000 only for mandatory disabled facilities grants. As local housing authorities will be able to decide their grant policy within the resources made available to them, we currently believe that there is no reason to introduce a grant limit on other discretionary grants.
3.45 pm
New clause 5, replacing clause 33, would provide for the power to specify maximum grant limits to rest with individual local authorities rather than with the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman will remember the full discussion that we had in Committee. Despite the arguments which he advanced then, and which he advanced today, I remain of the view that a consistent national policy should apply when essential and important principles, such as the maximum grant payable, are involved. Therefore, we think that it is right for the power to make those determinations to rest with the Secretary of State.
Amendments Nos. 6, 8 and 72 would remove the power to place a limit on the amount that may be paid on an application for a disabled facilities grant, regardless of the circumstances. As I have already said, we intend that there should be a maximum of £20,000 for mandatory disabled facilities grants.
It is worth mentioning that the average mandatory disabled facilities grant is about £4,000, with a very small minority of disabled facilities grants near the top end of the £20,000 limit. Those higher grants are usually given when a disabled person needs more extensive adaptations, including an extension to his home.
We recognise that there will be some disabled people whose needs will result in adaptations that require grant assistance in excess of the limit. So that authorities are not prevented from giving grants in those cases, a new provision—clause 33(3)—was introduced, enabling local authorities to pay discretionary grants above the grant limit when they consider that to be justified. So there is flexibility for local authorities.
When there could be a high cost to the recommended works, we believe that local authorities should be given the opportunity to assess the benefits of carrying out such works and to decide whether there is any other way in which to meet the disabled person's needs.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, our original proposals for the means-testing of disabled facilities grant applicants included relaxation of the test for mandatory grants, but not for discretionary grants. We considered that matter, and we have given an undertaking—which I now repeat—to allow for discretionary disabled facilities grants to be means-tested in the same manner as mandatory disabled facilities grants, thereby aligning the two means tests. That means that there will be no disadvantage to disabled applicants when they are given discretionary top-up grants beyond the £20,000 limit.
Given that undertaking, the £20,000 grant limit for mandatory disabled facilities grants now acts as a watershed, beyond which local authorities and social services departments must give careful consideration to whether the works proposed in the grant application are necessarily the only or even the best option available to meet the disabled person's needs. Local authorities will also have the power to exceed the limit when they are satisfied that that is necessary.
Notwithstanding the arguments that I have heard today, I believe that we have struck the right balance and given the correct discretion to local authorities.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister rightly mentioned the earlier discussion about the different means tests applying to disabled applicants seeking a mandatory award as against a discretionary award. We highlighted that problem in Committee, and Opposition Members are delighted that the Government have now accepted the case for a streamlined procedure, with a single means test applying to disabled applicants seeking mandatory awards and to those seeking discretionary awards. Those important improvements, which were achieved in Committee, create a fairer climate for disabled people and avoid unnecessary bureaucracy.
The existence of a limit has been part of the scheme—the Labour party believes that that is right. During the 1970s and 1980s a great deal of renovation work was undertaken with, on average, smaller sums than has recently been allocated to renovation grants. Under the provisions of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which are, in effect, being repealed by the Bill, the size of individual grants rose astronomically and there were cases involving extraordinary sums of public money being allocated to individual properties. That led to the progressive introduction of, first, a £50,000 limit and, more recently, a £20,000 limit. Clearly, that limit needs to be kept under review; it would be wrong to see it as a fixed figure for all time.
Given the limited availability of public resources and the need to ensure that as many renovation grants as possible can be approved, the Opposition do not object to


the principle of a broad, national limit to ensure consistency throughout the country and to ensure that resources are spread as widely as possible to benefit the maximum number of people.

Mr. Chris Davies: Rather than a consistent national policy—to use the Minister's words—which is promoted by both Conservative and Labour, I would prefer to see guidelines within which there was more flexibility for local authorities. It would seem that I am to be disappointed on this new clause and many other amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 14

GRANT FOR THE REDUCTION OF CONCENTRATION OF RADON

`.—(l) In the case of grants for the purpose of work to reduce the concentration of radon in the dwelling it shall be mandatory, subject to the provisions of this Part, for the local housing authority to approve an application for grant where—
(a) the concentration of radon in the dwelling has been shown to be above the action level for radon, and
(b) the nature of the work for which the grant is being made is as specified in guidance for local housing authorities produced by the Secretary of State.

(2) The action level for radon shall be determined by the Secretary of State after consulting with the National Radiological Protection Board and such other bodies and individuals as he sees fit.

(3) Grants shall be available in full to meet the cost of work arising under this section.

(4) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for the full reimbursement of local authorities for grants made under this section.'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 112, in clause 12, page 7, line 35, at end insert—
'(g) to reduce the concentration of radon in the dwelling;'.

Mrs. Maddock: New clause 14 and amendment No. 112 set up a mandatory grant framework for dealing with radon gas in people's homes. For the benefit of hon. Members, I shall take one or two minutes to describe radon. It is a naturally occurring radioactive gas which, like some other dangerous substances, is odourless and colourless. It can, however, be detected by a simple and cheap test.
The risk to those with the gas in their homes is considerable. The gas is known to be a health hazard. We know that, because underground miners who have been heavily exposed to the gas suffer high rates of lung cancer. Investigations into the problem have estimated that radon in people's homes may cause lung cancer in about 2,000 people every year—5 per cent. of the total incidence of lung cancer in Britain. That figure makes it second only to smoking as a contributory factor to lung cancer.
Radon gas is not evenly spread across Britain; it is particularly concentrated in the south-west and there are other pockets of concentration across the country.
The Government have designated some areas as radon-affected areas. They include Devon and Cornwall, parts of Somerset, Northamptonshire, Derbyshire and, in Wales, Pembrokeshire, Clwyd and some parts of Powys—it is quite a wide-ranging problem.

Mr. William O'Brien: The hon. Lady said that the problem is not evenly distributed throughout the United Kingdom. What action has been taken to ensure that local authorities carry out tests to see whether there is radon gas in their area? If no action has been taken, does the hon. Lady intend to introduce provisions this afternoon to ensure that it is?

Mrs. Maddock: I am grateful for that intervention. As I continue with my speech, I hope to answer some of the questions asked.
High concentrations of radon tend to be the result of particularly permeable ground containing a high level of uranium, because radon comes from within the earth and travels through cracks and fissures until it reaches the surface. Once it has reached the surface, it normally spreads out into the atmosphere and disperses relatively easily, but it can be concentrated in buildings, including people's homes, which is why I introduced the new clause. It is concentrated in homes because the air pressure in buildings is usually lower than that outside. Unless a building is well ventilated, radon will concentrate inside.
Modern developments in home insulation have meant that the problem has increased in recent years. Subsection (1)(b) of new clause 14 proposes action to tackle the problem with ventilation in homes. Two things can be done: first, ventilation can be installed in the roof space of houses and, secondly, a sump can be installed at ground level to soak up radon. The sump is more effective, but it is usually more expensive, costing between £500 and £1,500 for a contractor-fitted system. The do-it-yourself option is cheaper at £150 to £400 and is very effective, typically reducing radon levels by about 90 per cent.
Roof space positive ventilation is much cheaper, costing between £350 and £450 and about an extra £100 for installation. That method reduces radon levels by only half to two thirds.
Radon concentration is measured in becquerels per cubic metre: 1 bq is one radioactive emission per second. The Government have adopted the action level of 200 bq/cu m, which is at the bottom of the action range proposed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection of between 200 and 600 bq/cu m.
The action levels in subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause were proposed with the Government's figure of 200 bq in mind. New evidence may become available from time to time and the Government should have the necessary flexibility to vary that action level.
The action level varies from country to country. In Canada, the figure is high—800 bq—but in the Netherlands, it is low. Ours is broadly in line with that of Norway, Sweden and Australia, among others.
The Government deserve some credit for their response to the risk to people's health from radon. In recent years, the National Radiological Protection Board, an independent statutory body, has been funded to carry out a programme of radon measurement. This year it completed its mapping of radon levels over England and Wales.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asked about local authorities, which have an opportunity to publish information about radon. Publicity is often insufficient and people are not always aware of the free offer that is available. The radon levels of 250,000 homes have been measured using the Government funding.
The 1991 building regulations require all new properties in action areas to have mechanisms to reduce the concentration of radon because of the recognised risk of lung cancer, but the operation of the system for existing homes is at best patchy. The radon concentration in about 100,000 homes is higher than the Government's action level, so about 250,000 people may run the risk of contracting lung cancer.
We need a mandatory grants scheme to relieve the risk. The current scheme is discretionary and is not working properly. The most recent survey of environmental health officers was carried out in 1992. Some things may have changed since, but the best picture of grant provision is not good. In the worst affected area of Devon and Cornwall, only seven of 16 local authorities had a written policy for dealing with radon, and only seven had a policy of giving discretionary grants. In 1992, those seven councils approved only 11 grants between them—a tiny take-up, which shows the lack of public recognition of the risks involved.
People must realise the health hazards and must be given more information. Moreover, the Government should set up a mandatory and automatic grant scheme. The evidence shows that making grants discretionary significantly discourages take-up.
4 pm
This morning, as is my wont, I listened to Radio 4 and heard that the Government are to make some announcements about health and the environment. I shall therefore listen with interest to what the Minister has to say. Perhaps the fact that we tabled these amendments for debate today has pushed the Government into taking the issues seriously. The areas affected are concentrated in small pockets, but I still think that the money should be provided by central Government.
I agree that a mandatory scheme will not in itself solve the problem. It must be combined with greater publicity—the Minister may be about to tell me something along those lines in a moment. Greater public awareness of the risks is an important part of the strategy. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the new clause and the amendments, which explicitly state that radon reduction is a suitable use of renovation grant. Amendment No. 112 refers to that and new clause 14 sets out the framework.
If the Minister cannot accept our proposals, I hope that he will at least promise to review the situation and extend the funding available to local authorities in the affected areas. I hope too that the NRPB will be given more money and that publicity will be stepped up. More work clearly needs to be done. It will not amount to a great strain on the Exchequer; it would cost the Exchequer a lot more to treat people who contract lung cancer.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad of the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. There is a significant concentration of houses with high radon gas levels in

Northumberland, in the Wooler area on the edge of the Cheviot hills. When the identification was first made, six or seven years ago, levels of more than 500 bq were found in some properties there. The National Radiological Protection Board is to carry out more inspections; arising from that, there are two points that I want to draw to the Minister's attention.
First, it is difficult for local councils to implement a clear policy of assistance, because the whole subject is dealt with in great secrecy by the NRPB. That may be partly to protect property owners from adverse publicity if their houses are badly affected by radon, but it makes life extremely difficult for a local authority whose responsibility it is to know the condition of the housing stock in its area. I therefore hope that the Minister will reflect on the need for such secrecy. I also hope that local authorities will be told more about precisely what the NRPB is doing and about which houses or groups of houses are having to be inspected. Berwick-upon-Tweed borough council has encountered that difficulty throughout.
Secondly, like my hon. Friend, I refer to the applicability of the grant system to alleviating the problem. A great many householders are worried about their position if they find that they have to pay for significant improvements. I raised the problem some time ago; indeed, when I first raised it in 1990, the Secretary of State for the Environment was Chris Patten. He said then that it would cost between £500 and £1,500 per house to deal with the problem, but that he felt that the means-tested discretionary grant scheme was adequate for the purpose. I do not share that view.
It is not satisfactory if householders, some on modest incomes, but perhaps not modest enough to benefit from means-tested grants, must find that much money to make improvements as a result of a bolt from the blue. People in some areas have had to find money for many other problems with their properties recently. We had an extremely harsh winter and many people, including myself, experienced flooding from burst pipes. It is unfair if home owners are suddenly faced with a big bill to deal with an unseen but extremely worrying problem, so the Government should look beyond the minimal discretionary grant scheme to help them.
The issue has now dragged on for some time. It is six years since I first raised it and people in the affected area still do not have a clear picture of the problem. I hope that, once they know the extent of the problem, they will receive some assurance about financial help to do something about it, otherwise it will be a serious worry. I therefore plead with the Minister to look sympathetically at the new clause.

Mr. Clappison: I listened carefully to the contributions of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on this serious subject. I shall look into the right hon. Gentleman's points about liaison between the National Radiological Protection Board and Berwick council.
I cannot satisfy the hon. Lady entirely, but I hope that she will feel that I have gone some way towards doing so on this important subject. We take the subject of radon seriously, as it is a health risk and can contribute to causing lung cancer. As she fairly said, this year we took


forward the programme of information and testing to a number of households in additional areas. The programme seeks to deal with the radon problem effectively and completely.
I cannot accept the new clause and amendment because they would fundamentally cut across the principles that renovation grants shall be made at the discretion of the local housing authority and that authorities should develop private sector renewal strategies for using available resources. Making grants mandatory for that purpose would also undermine the flexibility that local authorities need to determine their priorities. However, I can give the hon. Lady some assurances, and my response does not mean that we do not consider radon to be a serious issue.
My Department has already provided comprehensive guidance to local authorities and home owners on reducing radon levels in the home. We also propose to draw attention to the issue in the guidance that we shall provide to local authorities on the new grant regime. We shall urge authorities to consider giving grant assistance for that purpose.
In addition, clause 12(1)(g) provides for the Secretary of State to specify that a dwelling complies with certain requirements with respect to construction or physical condition.

Mr. William O'Brien: When action must be taken to deal with radon in line with the Secretary of State's guidance, will planning authorities have to apply conditions in planning approvals?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman seems to be moving into slightly different territory. I am discussing the guidance that will be issued for existing properties. We propose to exercise the powers under clause 12 to provide for appropriate action to be taken according to the level of radon—discretionary renovation grant will be available above a certain level. We intend to make it clear in the guidance to local authorities that home repair assistance will also be available for that purpose to qualifying applicants.
The hon. Member for Christchurch knows the limits of the home repair assistance grants. There are a number of ways to address the radon problem, many of which do not involve the outlay of a considerable amount of expenditure —and I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware of them. However, I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, that it may be a considerable amount of expenditure for someone with limited means. Generally, dealing with radon does not involve a large sum.
I hope that what I have said about the way in which the Government will approach the problem, and the guidance that we will issue, will go some way towards allaying the hon. Lady's concerns. I hope that she will understand that we cannot accept the amendments, because they would cut across more fundamental principles. I hope that I have been able to persuade her that we are taking the issue seriously and that it is being dealt with appropriately within the framework of renovation grants.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister's response revealed the problems that the Government have got themselves into

with their approach to the Bill. Essentially, they are repealing the mandatory renovation grant framework that they introduced only seven years ago in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The Minister said that he could not accept the amendments of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) because there would not be many mandatory renovation grants in the future, so it would be wrong to give mandatory entitlement in only one category. That is the Government's problem—it is a problem of their making.
I do not depart from the logic that the Minister adopted. If there are no mandatory renovation grants, it becomes illogical to single out one particular category that can receive mandatory awards rather than others. The hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Berwick-uponTweed (Mr. Beith) highlighted the serious risks—including the life-threatening risks—connected with radon. However, people who live in sub-standard houses face other serious risks to their health, some of which are life threatening.
For example, people who live in multi-occupied houses risk death from fire or from carbon monoxide poisoning; people who live in particularly squalid and unfit accommodation suffer from respiratory illnesses; and elderly people who live in accommodation that is impossibly hard to heat in winter experience an above average risk of dying from hypothermia. It could be argued that many things are serious health risks and are potentially damaging and life threatening.
For those reasons, there is a certain logic in what the Minister is saying—that it would be wrong to have a mandatory entitlement for people who seek a grant to deal with radon when there is no mandatory entitlement for people who are living in death traps, such as multi-occupied houses, or who are living in squalid conditions. However, that is the Government's problem. I believe that guidance from the Minister is not enough.
The Minister distinguished himself in Committee. On many occasions, he was challenged from the Opposition Benches and he undertook to take matters away and reflect on them. Today, we have seen the fruits of some of that thinking. Clearly, the Minister has had time to reflect on the good sense of Opposition amendments and he has been convinced of their merits. The amendments that he will move today give effect to proposals that we advocated in Committee, and we welcome that.
The hon. Member for Christchurch would do well to press the Minister on this issue. All hon. Members recognise that radon is a serious problem and that there is a need for effective action that goes beyond guidance. Without stretching it to the point of a mandatory obligation on local authorities to give grants in such cases, there is an overwhelming case for measures to deal with the radon problem to be included on the face of the Bill.
I shall, therefore, offer the Minister a suggestion. The Bill commenced in another place and it will return to another place before it completes its passage through Parliament. However, their Lordships are not free to look at proposals that have not been amended in this House. If the Minister were willing to accept the amendments and to put them on the face of the Bill, with an agreement that they would be looked at more thoroughly in another place, it would be a way of ensuring that the issue was kept alive and that an appropriate framework was agreed. That would ensure that there was statutory recognition of the


importance of radon, but that there was not the anomaly of radon being given a fast track to renovation grants ahead of everything else. I believe that that is a helpful proposal for the Minister, and I hope that he accepts it.

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) is sometimes helpful, but his helpfulness is often tinged with playfulness. On his general point about housing renovation grants, he is fully aware of the problems of a demand-led grant system and of the way in which we have tried to address those problems openly. In responding to the same problems, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that a Labour Government would propose no additional resources for the grant system.
I cannot produce more resources—I could not even do so upon reflection. It does not matter how many times the Bill passes through the legislative process—sending it backwards and forwards between the House and the other place will not produce any more resources. During the passage of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman proposed no constructive ideas on using existing resources better. The only ideas that he advanced involved taking resources from those who are in the greatest need and giving them to those in less need. In this case, it could mean taking resources from those who need grants to deal with problems such as radon.
4.15 pm
Although the hon. Gentleman is very beguiling, I cannot go along with his suggestion. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) will accept that we have made a real attempt to address the problem of radon and that I have gone some way towards addressing her concerns.

Mr. Chris Davies: The borough of Oldham does not have high levels of radon gas emissions, but there are several hot spots. A constituent contacted me recently to say that she had learnt that work had been carried out that identified some properties at risk from the gas. Upon investigation, I obtained a copy of the report from the council. So as not to inflame public fears, it listed the few properties affected only by their postcodes. I am glad to report that my constituent's property was not among those listed, but mine was. That caused me some concern and I looked immediately to the leader of the council for a possible explanation for the gas emissions—perhaps it is simply because of the rock upon which my building is constructed.
My constituent was concerned because her child has leukaemia and, not surprisingly, her distress was increased by the suggestion that a radioactive gas might be causing problems for certain properties. It is a serious matter; it hardly affects my borough, but it is a great concern in other parts of the country. Although the Minister has treated the debate seriously and has suggested that he is doing all that he can, perhaps he should consider the matter still further and do a little more.

Mrs. Maddock: I listened to the Minister's remarks with interest—he always smiles pleasantly when responding to one's suggestions. It is interesting to note that local independence seems to depend upon whether the Government think that they have any money. I have said before that local authorities should be independent.

However, it is important to have national standards in certain areas. This is such an area—particularly as we are discussing saving money in the health service, which is funded nationally.
I hope that the guidance notes to local authorities will stress the importance of the issue, so that they will treat it seriously. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) pointed out that a major problem with the Bill is that it does not increase resources for grants to deal with property renovations or anything else: it simply moves the goalposts. The Minister's reply demonstrated that clearly—I do not recall his exact words, but I think he said that he could not find any more money. The Government are not really prepared to provide funding even though they have highlighted the dangers. On the radio this morning, even though there has been no statement today, they highlighted the importance of the matter. They have said that it is important in their great scheme for considering people's health and environmental matters. The Minister says that it is so important that he is not going to give any money to deal with it. I am very disappointed.
Will the Minister ensure that during the next year he considers how many grants are taken up, how much information is put out by local authorities and whether what the Government do, particularly in respect of the forthcoming statement on health, has any effect? We, too, will watch the matter and will question him again if we consider that what happens is unsatisfactory. It seems that it is down to money. It is dishonest to say on radio that they want to do something about the problem and then to tell the House that they will not put up any money for it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

INELIGIBLE APPLICANTS

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 7, at end insert—
'( ) a health authority, special health authority or NHS trust:'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 119, 46, 121, 57, 59 and 60.

Mr. Clappison: Under the current regime, NHS authorities and trusts are prevented from applying for grant by direction of the Secretary of State. In Committee, the hon. Member for Greenwich tabled an amendment that would have added such bodies to the list in clause 3(2) of applicants who cannot apply for grant. We agreed to consider that amendment, and, as a result of our deliberations, we have tabled amendment No. 16, which we believe achieves that.
Amendment No. 46 ensures that such bodies are also excluded from participating in group repair schemes as assisted persons. Amendments Nos. 119 and 121 achieve the same effect for police authorities established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964. The lists of ineligible applicants in clauses 3 and 64 also include new town corporations and housing action trusts.
Clause 3 also refers to urban development corporations. However, clauses 141 to 143 provide for those bodies to be dissolved and successor bodies created. We have therefore tabled amendments Nos. 57, 59 and 60, which provide that references to such bodies in part I should also be construed as references to their successor bodies. These are sensible amendments, which will ensure that grant goes only to appropriate persons.

Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister said, some of the amendments build on amendments that we moved in Committee and we welcome them. I congratulate him on the exemplary speed with which he lucidly explained so many technical amendments. I hope that he will follow that path during the remaining proceedings, and that he will continue to be as positive in accepting Opposition amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 119, in page 3, line 7, at end insert—

'( ) a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964;'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 3, line 15, at end insert—
'( ) Regulations under subsection (3) may proceed wholly or in part by reference to the provisions relating to entitlement to housing benefit, or any other form of assistance, as they have effect from time to time.'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 122 and 123.

Mr. Clappison: In Committee, we debated the powers in clause 3 that enable the Secretary of State to make regulations excluding certain categories of applicant from grant entitlement. As I explained then, the purpose of clause 3(2) is to prevent public sector bodies from applying for grant.
Clause 3(3) enables the Secretary of State to exclude applicants of certain descriptions. On commencement of part I, we intend to exercise clause 3(3) to exclude certain persons from abroad who have limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom while their applications to remain are dealt with. Under Home Office immigration rules, such persons are not to have recourse to public funds while they are in Britain. In previous debates, the hon. Members for Greenwich and for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) were concerned about the implications of the new provisions.
It was suggested that references to those categories should be included in the Bill. I explained that there is no power in the legislation for the Secretary of State to specify certain applicants who are to be excluded from applying for grant. We have therefore been unable to make provision in the subordinate legislation to reflect changes in this area made to benefit regulations, which, as hon. Members know, the grant regulations mirror. Subsection (3) provides a regulation-making power to exclude certain categories of applicant. It is not appropriate that specific categories should be included in the Bill. The rules themselves may change, and it is appropriate that there is flexibility in the grants legislation to respond quickly to such change.
The purpose of the amendment is to reflect in the grants legislation a recent Court of Appeal judgment concerning the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996. The court ruled that the regulations were ultra vires in so far as they purported to deny benefits to certain persons pursuing immigration matters with the Home Office.
The amendment inserts a reference providing for regulations made under clause 3 to refer to the provisions relating to entitlement to housing benefit and any other form of assistance that may have effect from time to time. In effect, it will ensure that those persons excluded in the regulations are people who are subject to immigration control who are not entitled to housing benefit. It will ensure that those who are covered by these controls but who are able to apply for benefit following the court ruling are not excluded from grant eligibility.
We have already debated these provisions. It is unlikely that many of those who are covered by the relevant immigration controls would qualify for grants under part I.
The purpose of the grant system is to ensure that people are given help with repairs and improvements, so that they may remain in fit homes. The legislation is therefore framed to meet that objective, with most applicants required to satisfy a prior qualifying period of ownership or occupation of the dwelling. It is unlikely that many persons covered by the immigration rules would be able to meet these and other requirements of the grants legislation. The amendment would ensure that no one who qualifies for housing benefit will be excluded from grant eligibility.
Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 make similar provision in respect of a person's eligibility to participate in a group repair scheme or to receive home repair assistance. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister rightly conceded, it is not likely that many people who come to the United Kingdom seeking asylum will be in a position to apply for renovation grants. That of itself should cause us to pause for thought about the wisdom of the proposed measures, and of the way in which the Government are proceeding.
Another cause for thought is that the Minister has stressed that the proposed legislation has been framed to ensure that anyone who qualifies for housing benefit will not be debarred from renovation grant. The Minister will be aware that the majority of home owners are those who qualify for renovation grants. By definition, they do not qualify for housing benefit. The reference to housing benefit will cause a great deal of confusion, but it is there because it is the test that is used for the definition of entitlement to welfare benefits, a test that may result in people being denied those benefits because they are asylum seekers.
The Minister might like to reflect on a further area of confusion. There was a well publicised case recently of someone who, threatened with deportation from this country, sought refuge or sanctuary in church premises, from where he was seized by immigration officials. According to reports in the press, his seizure caused him a serious health problem.
I do not want to go into the circumstances of that case, but I ask the Minister to reflect on the interrelationship of the amendments and the provisions in amendment No. 56,


which he will be moving later. He will know that amendment No. 56 would exempt charities and ecclesiastical residences from restrictions on participation in group repair schemes.
It would at the least be curious if renovation grants or group repair financial assistance were available to premises in which immigrants were seeking sanctuary because of the draconian nature of the immigration procedures facing them. It seems that there would be no bar on payment of a grant to such premises under the provisions in the amendments. At the same time, in the very few cases in which an asylum seeker was in a position to seek the benefit of a group repair scheme, he or she would be debarred by the nature of the proposed provisions.
The amendments are one further rather sad illustration of the Government's ill-conceived and mean-minded vendetta against asylum seekers, many of whom have a genuine fear of persecution and are in this country because of fear for their lives elsewhere. The fact that people are being treated in such a way by the Government constitutes one of the more shameful records in the annals of the Government. They will be remembered for it long after they have been forced out of office.

Mr. Chris Davies: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), but I welcome the slight clarification that has been inserted into the clause. Any limitation on the enormously open-ended freedom that was given to the Secretary of the State in the original clause—to determine at almost any time who should be entitled to grant aid—is to be welcomed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

THE AGE OF THE PROPERTY

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 3, leave out lines 16 to 21.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 7

RENOVATION GRANTS: OWNER'S APPLICATIONS AND TENANT'S APPLICATIONS

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 4, line 35, leave out from 'State' to end of line 36 and insert—
'References in this Chapter to tenants and other expressions relating to tenancies, in the context of a tenant's application for a renovation grant, shall be construed accordingly.'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 19 to 21, 40, 45, 47, 48 and 58.

Mr. Clappison: The Bill as drafted has sought to include in the scope of grant aid those residents who occupy their homes under licences. It is the intention of the Bill that such applicants be treated as tenants for the purposes of grant eligibility. That is achieved by virtue of clauses 7, 14 and 19, which provide for the Secretary of State to extend, by order, the ambit of qualifying tenant for the purposes of grants to include other tenants and licensees.
That, however, has consequences for terms of reference in the Bill which apply to tenants such as letting and tenancy. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the intention of such expressions can be applied to those licensees eligible for grant assistance. These are technical amendments to achieve that effect.

Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister stressed, this is largely a technical group of amendments that seek to ensure that licensees are treated in exactly the same way as tenants for the purposes of grant applications. We welcome that. It is a sensible move. The only problem, however, is the lack of consistency.
When we reach Government amendments Nos. 50 and 51, we shall discover that, far from treating licensees in the same way as tenants, the Government are adopting a quite different approach where the Bill deals with the entitlement to notification, where people live in properties affected by deferred action notices. I ask the Minister to reflect on the rather curious differential treatment in the Bill between licensees and tenants.
Having said that, we welcome amendment No. 18. However, we are less keen about amendments Nos. 50 and 51. We welcome the amendment because it ensures that a licensee will not be treated differently from a tenant, and there are people who are licensees because of the nature of the agreement—which, in many cases, they were forced to sign—who should not be discriminated against if they seek a grant to assist in the renovation of their homes.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

RENOVATION GRANTS: CERTIFICATES REQUIRED IN CASE OF OWNER'S APPLICATION

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 5, line 7, at end insert—

`(3A) In subsection (3) references to letting include the grant of a licence to occupy premises.

References in this Chapter to tenants and other expressions relating to tenancies, in the context of a certificate of intended letting, shall be construed accordingly:.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 13

RENOVATION GRANTS: APPROVAL OF APPLICATION

Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 8, line 40, at end insert—
'(7) Subject to the provisions in this section, the local housing authority shall approve an application for grant to make a property fit where the property is occupied by—
(a) people whose household contains one or more persons with a disability;
(b) a person who is receiving services or grants for services from the local welfare authority as part of a care package;
(c) people whose health is being adversely affected by the state of the disrepair of their home; or
(d) people of pensionable age.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 102, in page 8, line 40, at end insert—
'(6A) In considering whether to approve an application for a renovation grant the authority shall have regard to any existing local housing renewal strategies.'.
No. 103, in page 8, line 40, at end insert—
'(6A) When determining whether to approve applications for grant aid under this Part local housing authorities shall have regard to the local welfare authority's duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the local community care plan.'.

Mr. Davies: The amendment seeks to target those who are in most need of assistance and whose quality of life is affected by the unfitness of the property in which they live.
I remind the House that the Bill breaks all the promises and assurances that the Government made, as recently as 1989, when they established the current mandatory grant system. It is true, of course, that the Government's refusal then to put their money where their mouth was has brought the grants system into disrepute, creating long waiting lists that local housing authorities find it impossible to meet.
The Bill takes away all hope, except for those who live in an area targeted as a specific renewal area by the local housing authority. It takes away all hope from those in the community whose properties are unfit. The Government have, in effect, abandoned the old, the sick and the disabled, by cutting the resources that the same Government made available a decade ago, and which they implied when they passed legislation in 1989 would continue to be made available. The Government have taken away hope from those people.
The amendment seeks to restore a little of that hope, and recognises that it is important that such individuals be specifically targeted for assistance.

Mr. Raynsford: Let me outline the purpose of amendments Nos. 102 and 103, and explain how they differ from amendment No. 5.
The amendments seek to ensure that, in the approval of grants, special attention is given to two separate factors: local housing renewal strategies developed by local authorities, and those who are subject to a duty under either the community care policy or local authority obligations under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
Unlike the Liberal Democrats, we do not seek to reinstate mandatory grants for certain categories of people, for reasons that I outlined in our earlier debate. I shall not go over that ground again. We do, however, believe that, in exercising their discretion, local authorities should pay special regard to certain factors. They should, for example, be encouraged to develop housing renewal strategies, and to focus attention on both particular areas and particular ways of responding to the need for renovation of older and sub-standard properties in their areas.
We regret the Government's lamentable failure to produce a coherent strategy for home renovation: they are dismantling the mandatory renovation grant framework without replacing it with a suitable alternative. All local authorities should, however, consider the need for renovation in their areas, and devise strategies to deal with

the problems. When they do so, they should have the opportunity to give proper weight to the force of those strategies when determining renovation grants.
In Committee, I raised questions about the extent to which local authorities would be free to do that. We queried whether a local authority could be challenged legally if it chose to give priority to, for instance, an applicant living in a renewal area, as against one living outside it, when assessing entitlement to a renovation grant. The point was that authorities would not be able to develop renewal area strategies if they felt nervous about legal action being taken because they had given preference to people within such areas.
At that time, the Minister undertook to reflect on the matter. On 4 June, as can be seen from column 125 of the Hansard Committee report, he agreed to reflect on those points in order to ensure that there was no risk of legal action, and, in a letter to me dated 28 June, he wrote that he had
asked officials to confirm with Parliamentary Counsel that the Bill as drafted contains the necessary powers"—
that is, the powers that were necessary for local authorities to ensure that they could not be challenged for giving priority to an applicant in a renewal area.
I should be grateful if the Minister could assure us now that that is the case. If it is not, I hope that he will reflect further on the need for amendment No. 102. It would clearly be unsatisfactory if local authorities were inhibited from developing proper renewal strategies by the fear that they could not be implemented because of a risk of legal action.
Our second concern is covered by amendment No. 103, which deals with entitlement to assistance for people who are either the subject of duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act or receiving assistance under the care in the community policy. Both policies are important, affecting disabled people. It is right for authorities to consider the implication of their policy, and its possible impact on those with disabilities or special needs. There is an obvious case for putting into statute an obligation for local authorities to have regard to those wider responsibilities when considering how to discharge their responsibilities. I hope that the amendments commend themselves to the House and to the Minister.

Mrs. Maddock: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies). Disabled people, those who care for them and people who have been trying to formulate community care plans in recent years, were extremely concerned when they saw that the Bill did not provide mandatory grants for disabled facilities. I should like to bring home to the Minister how strongly people feel about that.
I have an enormous number of elderly people in my constituency. I understand that a council division in my constituency has the highest number of over 85-year-olds in the country. Those people, those who care for them and the people who put together the community care plans are extremely worried.
The Government keep hiding behind their statement that they want to give discretion to local authorities. That is fine, but the amendment leaves that final discretion with those authorities. It states that the local authority must take into account local community care plans and


strategies. Without that, many elderly people will not get the priority that they need for adaptations and changes in their homes.
I hope that the Minister will think carefully about that. Many people outside are extremely concerned, and will be even more worried at the general election when they see what the Government have done. I hope that the Minister will have something favourable to say. I and other people have lobbied him on this matter, which is important to the most vulnerable people in society.

Mr. George Stevenson: I support amendments Nos. 102 and 103. I underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford): that, in Committee, the Minister undertook to reflect on numerous amendments, of which No. 102 was one. If I remember correctly, he was not initially impressed by the amendment, but when he had listened to the arguments, he saw its merits; hence his undertaking to reflect. I hope that that reflection has convinced him, and that he will accept the amendment.
The Government created the crisis in improvement grants, but they are now washing their hands and passing the problem to local authorities. When the Bill becomes law and local authorities are criticised and Ministers taken to task, they will tell the House, "It isn't our fault. People will need to go to their local authorities, because they have the power and the responsibility." I can already hear Ministers saying that.
Secondly, emphasis, onus and responsibility will plainly be placed on local authorities, and that makes it that much more important to have local authority strategies taken fully into account. In Committee, the Minister had a great deal to say about strategy, although whether we can detect Government strategy in the Bill is a matter that we will not debate. I accept that there has to be a strategy, and that, if it has to be developed at local level, as the Minister tried to convince us, so be it. It is better to have a strategy at local level than to have none at all, as seems to be the case with the Government.
Having impressed on local authorities, as the Minister did, the need to develop strategies, surely it cannot be right for him to give local authorities the opportunity to opt out of them. The Minister's arguments in Committee were that local strategies and discretion were important. I am not suggesting that authorities would want to opt out and ignore their strategies. However, if strategies are developed—the Minister says that they will have to be—not to include in the Bill a requirement for local authorities to take them into account when determining grant approvals is nonsense. I hope that the Minister has reflected positively on amendment No. 102.
4.45 pm
One of the points we tried to make in Committee when considering the substance of amendment No. 3 was the importance of developing further the relationships between the responsibilities of social services committees and the application and approval of grants. I accept that much has been done, but that is not to say that enough has been done. The amendment is important, to show clearly the intention of the Government and the House to see that the good work that has been done is developed.
Time does not allow me to itemise the long list of improvements that would result if we addressed the issue of more co-ordination between the responsibilities and

duties placed on social services departments and house improvement grants. That is what the amendment seeks to do, and it would benefit the people who need these facilities and grants. More important, it would make better use of scarce resources. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will accept amendments Nos. 102 and 103.

Mr. Clappison: I have listened carefully to the debate. In moving amendment No. 5, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth got a little carried away in his evaluation of the new system. It would be wrong to suggest that housing need will not be met through these provisions. Of course it will be met through the discretionary grants, the mandatory disabled facilities grants and home repair assistance, which will be an improvement of an already popular scheme—the minor works assistance scheme. A great deal of assistance will be provided by all those schemes.
I do not want to go over old ground, but the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth knows that the scheme is a strategic one, and that the Bill's fundamental purpose is to replace the present system of mandatory grants with a discretionary grants system. The proposals in the amendment would cut across that, by specifying cases that should be treated as mandatory, while other cases that are equally worthy but are not spelt out in the Bill would be subject to discretion. The amendment would lead to the unsatisfactory halfway house of a discretionary and mandatory scheme. It would cut across important principles, and I am afraid that I cannot accept it.
Amendment No. 102 is important, and deals with renewal areas. In Committee, the hon. Member for Greenwich feared that local authorities might be open to challenge if they gave priority to grant applicants in renewal areas over those whose properties might be in the same poor condition but were not in a renewal area, where that was in accordance with a local renewal strategy.
My initial response in Committee was that the purpose of what we proposed was a strategic system. However, I have considered the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, and I am satisfied that the powers in clause 13(1) provide the scope for authorities to prioritise applications to achieve the aims of their renewal strategies. It can be argued that a permissive provision allowing local authorities to take local strategies into account is unnecessary, because in practice the general principle is that a local authority should take all relevant factors into account. Where it exists, a local renewal strategy must be such a matter.

Mr. Raynsford: I should like to press the Minister on this issue. Will he state categorically that it is his considered view that there is no risk whatever for a local authority in giving priority to applicants within renewal areas of facing a legal challenge from applicants living elsewhere whose housing needs might be equally pressing, or even more severe?

Mr. Clappison: Yes, we are satisfied that authorities will be able to prioritise applications to achieve the aims of their renewal strategies. If the amendment were accepted, inadvertently, there might be more of a risk of a challenge to local authorities. The amendment is not necessary. Authorities will be able to prioritise


applications to achieve the aims of their renewal strategies. That is the point that concerns the hon. Gentleman and we have met it.
Amendment No. 103 would require authorities, when deciding whether to approve an application for a renovation grant, to take into account the duties of the welfare authority under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. and the local community care plan. Again, it is important that, in prioritising demand for grants, authorities take into account the housing needs and circumstances of the most vulnerable groups, such as elderly and disabled people. In doing so, they will be able to take into account any care package for the applicant provided by the welfare authority under the community care legislation or, where appropriate, the duty of that authority to assist under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
The current guidance, which recommends effective consultation between housing and welfare authorities on the special housing needs of people in their regions, already enables housing authorities to take into account all the relevant factors in determining grant applications, including the prioritisation of cases for the available resources. Where the person needs help with adaptations and applies for a disabled facilities grant, there is already provision for consultation with the social services authority on the adaptation needs of the disabled person.

Mr. Stevenson: While he reflects on this point, will the Minister consider this relationship as it applies to care in the community, how the special transitional grant is used by local authorities in terms of providing the facilities for that care, and the interface between that grant and housing renovation grants?

Mr. Clappison: The two grants are entirely separate. I believe that the special transitional grant is a ring-fenced grant. The disabled facilities grant is certainly a ring-fenced grant within the overall grants systems. Obviously, it is important that the two systems should be viewed in conjunction as they deal with similar issues, but I emphasise that the two systems are separate. My point is that it is important that there should be effective and appropriate consultation between social service authorities and housing authorities, a subject that we discussed at length in Committee.
I do not believe, therefore, that the amendments are necessary.

Mr. William O'Brien: On the Minister's last point about the consultation between the local authority's social services department, which is responsible for the care in the community programme, and the housing authority, with the current structure in local government, those two departments can be attached to different authorities. For instance, Selby district council is responsible for housing and North Yorkshire county council is responsible for social services. Unless we accept amendment No. 103, unless we ensure that the two authorities do come together, and unless there is this protection for people in need of grant, disputes could develop. This afternoon, we can ensure that there are protections for people who need consideration by accepting amendment No. 103.
Subsection (6) of clause 13 states:
In considering whether to approve an application for a renovation grant the authority shall have regard to the expected life of the building (taking account, where appropriate, of the effect of carrying out the works).
If the Minister accepts amendment No. 103, that will tidy up that subsection. Therefore, amendment No. 103 is important because it crosses the borders of local authorities. We need to have a provision in the Bill that will protect people in need. Amendment No. 103 does that. I therefore ask the Minister to reflect on the issue.

Mr. Clappison: In response to that point, I have made it clear that we intend that there should be effective consultation between the housing and welfare authorities, whatever the structure of local government.

Mr. Chris Davies: The Minister says that needs will be met, but he is simply whistling in the wind in making such a statement because he and his Government do not allocate sufficient resources to meet those needs—they do not allocate a fraction of the resources that are required. Of course I support the general principle that expenditure should be concentrated in renewal areas, where appropriate, because that makes the best use of the money that is available, but, with present funding to local authorities, the problems of unfitness will not be dealt with in the lifetimes of even comparatively young people living in some of the older properties, let alone the lifetimes of some of the more elderly who live in unfit properties. The Government are abandoning pledges that they made only six years ago, when the existing legislation was put on the statute book. Although it may be inappropriate to divide the House, I do not wish to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 14

COMMON PARTS GRANTS: OCCUPATION OF FLATS BY OCCUPYING TENANTS

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 9, line 14, at end insert—

.'References in this Chapter to other expressions relating to tenancies, in the context of an application for a common parts grant, shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 19

DISABLED FACILITIES GRANTS: OWNER'S AND TENANT'S APPLICATIONS

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 12, line 15, leave out 'related expressions' and insert—

'other expressions relating to tenancies, in the context of an application for disabled facilities grant,'.—[Mr. Brandreth]

Clause 24

DISABLED FACILITIES GRANTS: APPROVAL OF APPLICATION

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 14, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert—
'and the authority shall take that into account in deciding whether it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the relevant works.'.


This amendment concerns the consideration of the fitness of a property where an application for disabled facilities grant has been made.
In Committee, we debated this issue at length in the context of subsection (5) of clause 24, which provides authorities with discretion not to approve grant where it appears that the property is unfit. Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Greenwich, were especially concerned that, as drafted, the provision discriminates against people who live in unfit properties. It was suggested that the provisions in subsection (3) already provided the discretion for authorities to refuse an application where it is not practicable, and that that would cover where a property is unfit, making subsection (5) unnecessary.
On that occasion, I assured hon Members that the provision's purpose was to ensure only that authorities, in considering whether to undertake proposed works, had the discretion to approve the application, where the property's condition was such that it would clearly be impracticable to undertake the proposed adaptation works, and where the disabled person refused to have the property made safe or improved. However, I said then that I would reflect further on the matter and, if necessary, table an amendment.
Our amendment removes subsection (5), on which there was the debate in Committee and, for completeness, inserts a requirement for authorities to take into account the matters in subsection (4) in respect of the property's fitness, in deciding whether it is reasonable and practicable to undertake the relevant works, which stands alongside the other requirement for work to be necessary and suitable. There is no disagreement between us that we want disabled people seeking help with adaptations through isabled facilities grants to be left in good homes, which are fit following completion of the works. The amendment is a sensible measure that helps achieve that aim.

Mr. Raynsford: In the Minister's words, this is a "sensible" amendment. In our words, it gives effect to amendments moved in Committee by the Opposition. We welcome the Government's acceptance or conversion, however people would put it. This will improve the Bill and avoid an anomaly that could have led to discrimination against some disabled people. It is a significant improvement and we welcome it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27

HMO GRANTS:PURPOSES FOR WHICH GRANT MAY BE GIVEN

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 15, line 38, at end insert—
`(k) to comply with the requirements of a registration scheme made by a local housing authority under section 346 of the Housing Act 1985 (as amended by section 64 of the Housing Act 1996).'.
The amendment would make facilitating compliance with a local authority registration scheme an explicit purpose of multi-occupation grant. Every hon. Member is aware of the extent of problems with multi-occupied properties. As I have already said, there are concentrations of poor and, in many cases, life-threatening conditions in such properties. There is an urgent need for action to

improve conditions and, during our debates on the Housing Bill, we stressed the importance of more effective measures to deal with multi-occupied houses.
The Opposition believe that there is a case for a mandatory national licensing scheme which would apply in all areas and ensure more effective action. Regrettably, the Government do not accept that, and have opted for a more limited registration scheme. Although it is more limited, however, the scheme at least provides options for local authorities that choose to use it—the latter is an important issue—and they will be able to take action against properties in poor condition and try to ensure that the conditions are improved.
5 pm
In certain circumstances, the use of grant aid is an important tool in bringing such properties into good condition. Telling a landlord that the condition of his property is unacceptable is easier if one can also say, "If you apply for a grant, we may be able to assist you with the necessary renovation work." The scheme for grants for multi-occupied houses provides for such financial assistance in appropriate cases. That is all well and good, but what is extraordinary is that, in a long list in the Bill setting out what purposes can be served by grants for multi-occupied houses, action to facilitate compliance with the local authority registration scheme is not mentioned.
The amendment would put that oversight right. I cannot believe that it is anything other than an oversight, or that it is Government policy not to support registration schemes when they have argued all year that they are the most effective way in which to deal with multi-occupied houses. If they believe that, surely they should give their beliefs full effect and accept this modest amendment, which simply reinforces the fact that the grants can be usefully employed to ensure compliance with the registration scheme.

Mr. Clappison: There is some common ground between us on this issue, but I do not find it extraordinary or such an obvious case of oversight that we have approached it in the way that we have rather than through the inclusion of registration of houses in multiple occupation as one of the criteria in the Bill—as the hon. Gentleman would. As he said, the Bill sets out a long list and it would provide for any physical requirement necessary to bring a house in multiple occupation up to a fit standard for registration. The addition of a scheme-related purpose to a list covering specific types of work would not be appropriate in any case.
It seems sensible for a local authority to have regard to the requirements of its registration scheme when considering an application for grant for a house in multiple occupation. A link between the requirements for registration and consideration of a grant application would be more appropriately provided for in the guidance that the Department will be issuing to local authorities on the implementation of the new legislation, and I shall ensure that the issue is fully covered.

Mr. Raynsford: Being tossed a few crumbs when the Government choose not to accept an amendment is always welcome. The offer of a reference in guidance is at least a step in the right direction, so we will not press the


amendment any further. I trust that the guidance will correctly emphasise the importance of taking into account a local authority registration scheme.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 31

DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF GRANT IN CASE OF LANDLORD'S APPLICATION

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 18, line 22, leave out from first 'be' to 'make' in line 35 and insert
`determined by the local housing authority, having regard to—
(a) the extent to which the landlord is able to charge a higher rent for the premises because of the works, and
(b) such other matters as the Secretary of State may direct.
( ) The authority may, if they think it appropriate, seek and act upon the advice of rent officers as to any matter.
( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations'.
The amendment provides for authorities to have regard to the extent to which the landlord is able to generate higher rental income on the improved property and, if they think it appropriate, to seek and act upon advice from rent officers on any matters concerning rents.
Clause 31 provides authorities with discretion to determine the amount of grant in landlords' applications covered in subsection (1). It is important therefore that decisions taken by authorities on grant applications made by landlords are based on sound information. The scope for the landlord to charge a higher rent for the improved property will obviously have a bearing on the amount of grant that the local authority may award. We consider it appropriate, therefore, that express provision is made to ensure that authorities have regard to that in every case in determining grant.
The amendment simplifies the current version of clause 31(4), allowing local authorities to obtain and take into account any relevant matters. A general provision of this kind is preferable to more detailed provisions, which are more appropriately placed either in departmental guidance or in guidance issued to rent officers by the Institute of Rent Officers. The amendment therefore provides also for authorities to obtain and take into account advice from rent officers on any matters that they consider relevant to an application.
Those are sensible provisions which provide authorities with the flexibility that they need to reach sound decisions on such cases.

Mr. Raynsford: Like the previous Government amendment, this is a partial move in the right direction by the Government, when a more extensive move would be welcome. It is a partial move because it recognises the importance of obtaining the best information on the likely increased rental income to a landlord when a property is renovated so that that income can be taken into account when determining the landlord's entitlement to grant. We approve of and endorse that provision, and we welcome the reference to the role of rent officers in that respect.
We regret that the Government have not seen the need to go further and accept the proposal we made in Committee—that it should be possible for a local

authority to get a binding agreement from a landlord that the rent estimates taken into account in calculating grant entitlement will be honoured for a specified period. What happens if, after the grant has been calculated on the assumption that the landlord will obtain certain rental income after the property has been improved, the landlord secures a much larger rent and therefore obtains a much better financial return? Had that return been taken into account when the grant was assessed, the landlord would have qualified for a lesser grant.
Seeking the best information when applications are assessed is one thing, but if one does so without having powers to require the landlord to be bound by those assumptions, or to recover grant if a landlord has broken such conditions, it is only a limited step. We regard the amendment as a step in the right direction, but only a modest one and we regret the fact that the Government have not gone further, followed the logic of our position—and probably the logic of their position, if they took the time to think the matter through—and agreed that there should be controls on the rents that can be charged subsequently as well on assumptions about what the rents would be.

Mr. Clappison: We seem to have moved from talking about assumptions to talking about controls—something that rings warning bells.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34

DECISION AND NOTIFICATION

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 20, line 26, at end insert—

'( )the amount of the costs which have been or are to be incurred as mentioned in subsection (2)(c) has increased,'. —[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 36

DELAYED PAYMENT OF MANDATORY GRANT

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 21, line 7, leave out

`by virtue of section 23(1)'

and insert

'under section 24(I)(a)'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 21, line 8, after 'so', insert 'in exceptional circumstances'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 61, in page 21, line 11, leave out from 'than' to end of line 12 and insert
`six months after the date of the application.'.
No. 106, in page 21, line 13, at end insert—
'(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply if the disabled occupant is in hospital or residential care or a delay in adaptations would have a detrimental effect on the long term health or safety of the disabled occupant'.

Mr. Raynsford: We now come to a very fundamental issue—the availability of grants to people who are disabled, and the provisions in clause 36 that allow delayed payment of such grants.
Most people who are familiar with the working of the current grant regime and with the availability of grants for people with disabilities are very conscious of the problems caused by delay. It takes a great deal of time, not only before applications are assessed, but there is often further delay while reports are obtained from relevant sources such as occupational therapists, people at social services and others qualified to make an assessment on the need for aids or adaptations to suit the needs of disabled people.
Currently, delays of two years and more are not uncommon, so clause 36, which allows for a further 12-month delay from approval of the grant to its payment has—quite rightly—caused serious alarm and concern among those who suffer from disabilities.
Disabled people's concerns have not been allayed by the Government's justification for that provision in clause 36. When challenged about it, Ministers accepted that there would be delays in some cases, but they said that they were necessary because the new framework allows some grants—such as the disabled facilities grant—to be mandatory, which in some cases will pose a serious problem for local authorities' finances. The discretion to postpone payment for 12 months was therefore necessary, they said, to enable local authorities to comply with the requirements.
We noticed that the Government's proposed solution was not a possible alternative framework to ensure that local authorities were able to finance disabled facilities grants within a year; instead, they argued for this provision as a fail-safe mechanism.
The Government also called in aid local authorities, arguing that they would find it difficult to comply with the obligations of a mandatory grant system without a framework allowing deferment. I must tell the Minister that local authorities are far from enthusiastic about clause 36. They know very well that it is an unpopular clause, that it will rightly lead to much anger and irritation among disabled people and that it will be resented very widely. Local authorities would much prefer a framework in which they can meet the need for disabled facilities grants within a reasonable timeframe.
A second issue, which has been aired in Committee but to which the Minister has not given a satisfactory answer, is the position of the contractor. Applications for disabled facilities grants will be based on an estimate from the contractor who is to carry out the work. There is a requirement that competitive tenders be obtained for grants and, when there are two or more tenders, the most favourable—presumably the lowest—will be accepted. The contractor will have tendered on the assumption that the work will be carried out within a reasonable period of time, and most contractors specify that the tender will be valid for only a limited time.
If grant payment is deferred for 12 months, the contractor will either try to honour a tender that is clearly out of time or—much more likely—seek to renegotiate the price because the tender period has passed. If that happens, the supposed beneficial effect of delaying implementation could result in a further claim on public funds when the contractor seeks an increase—it is not normal for contractors to seek reductions in tenders—because of the delay. That perfectly reasonable point was made in Committee, but the Minister had no answer to it.
Clause 36 is unpopular because it will cause anomalies and hardship to many people. It will also cause further increases in public expenditure. If disabled people have to remain in hospital, residential care or other similar accommodation because appropriate work has not been done to their homes so that they can live in them, the cost will almost certainly be far more than the cost of a renovation grant.
The organisations concerned with assistance for disabled people have produced a series of estimates of the costs of keeping people in hospital. The figures with which I have been provided by disability organizations—particularly by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, which has done an excellent job throughout the Bill's passage on behalf of people with disabilities—show that Department of Health statistics estimate that a geriatric bed costs more than £700 a week. A delay of even a few weeks would therefore be very costly, and a delay of one year would be hugely costly—in the region of £40,000.
It cannot make sense to incur substantial additional public expenditure by keeping in hospital people who want to return to their home simply because the payment of a disabled facilities grant to enable them to return home has been delayed due to the provisions of clause 36.
5.15 pm
We made all those points in Committee, and the Minister responded to them. On 6 June, he gave a very straightforward response. He said:
I can give some reassurance to the Committee. The power is discretionary and we envisage that local authorities will use it only in exceptional circumstances."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 June 1996; c. 178.]
I hope that the Minister will remember those words, because they are precisely the words of our amendment. Our amendment seeks to put the words "in exceptional circumstances" in the Bill and to give effect to the expression of hope that the Minister gave the Committee.
If the Minister opposes our amendment, he will owe it to the House to explain why his preferred solution in Committee is now not acceptable and why it is not reasonable to say that this provision should be available only in exceptional circumstances. If he does not accept our amendment, he will have a lot of explaining to do.
Amendment No. 106 seeks to ensure that delay does not apply when people are awaiting a move out of hospital or in which delay in approving a renovation grant would have a detrimental effect on their long-term health or safety. Those are obvious requirements of any civilised society, and they are sensible in the interests of saving public money by not keeping people in hospital beds for longer than necessary.
Amendment Nos. 105 and 106 make a great deal of sense and give effect to the proposal made by the Minister in Committee. I hope that the Government will accept them. If they do not accept them, I sincerely hope that the House will ensure that they are incorporated into the Bill.

Mr. Chris Davies: I endorse many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Greenwich, particularly his remarks on the alarm and concern caused by delays. I am surprised, however, that he did not go further in his amendment. We have tried to impose tighter limits in


amendment No. 61. It obviously takes some time for local authorities to process applications for grant, but we believe that six months should be more than sufficient for the payment of this type of grant.
I am not convinced that disabled facilities grants should be further delayed in the manner proposed by the Minister and as provided for in the Bill. We believe that the maximum period should be reduced, and we should have been very happy if the suggestion of a reduction to six months had been incorporated into the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Greenwich.
I also seek the Minister's views on the subject, and an explanation of why the far too extensive period allocated to local authorities for payment of the grant should remain in the Bill. Surely he should have recognised by now that there is no justification for that provision. It is yet another example of the Minister giving disabled people a lower place in the queue than that to which they are entitled.

Mr. Stevenson: I look forward to the Minister's response because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said, during our discussions in Committee, the Minister accepted the principle. He said that local authorities would use the power "only in exceptional circumstances", which is exactly what the amendment seeks to do. I hope that I am correct in assuming that we are not talking about the principle, but about the method of obtaining the result.
Amendment No. 105 seeks to place the Minister's commitment on the face of the Bill. That is the best method to use for such an important subject. I hope that the Minister will agree and accept that that is the right thing to do. If he does not, we shall listen carefully to how he intends to deliver the commitment that he gave in Committee. The fact that the Government are attempting to strike the right balance between the available resources and expectations of what the Minister describes as a demand-led scheme is well documented.
The Government's refusal to accept the amendment in Committee on the basis of the need to avoid causing local authorities considerable financial difficulty, is also well documented. My experience of local authorities is that they are pretty good at managing such matters, although resources present a considerable problem. I think that most of us agreed with the Minister when he said, as he did in Committee, that he would expect such applications to be processed in no more than six months. He was talking about the processing of the applications. As the amendment states, we are talking about further delays in the system in terms of payments.
Let us not confuse the Minister's reassuring words in Committee—that he would expect applications to be processed in no more than six months—which we would all accept, with the amendment, which deals with when the payments begin. Clause 36 involves an inbuilt delay of 12 months in the vital matter of mandatory grants for disabled facilities. For the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, we believe that that is wrong, not only in principle but in practice. Given the Minister's commitment to the principle, I hope that he

will accept the need for the provision to be placed on the face of the Bill and accept amendment No. 105.

Mr. Clappison: It is clear from the debate that the disabled facilities grant is important. It has been a successful grant and it will continue to be successful, providing many disabled people with facilities and modifications to make their life easier and safer—but it will be a demand-led system. As we said in Committee, clause 36 is an honest and open attempt to deal with the problems that sometimes arise from a demand-led system. I emphasise the word "sometimes" and I shall be more specific about that later.
In respect of amendment No. 61, I must draw the attention of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth to the fact that the Bill already provides that all applications must be determined no later than six months after they were made and that a grant must be paid when the works have been completed. His amendment, which would reduce the period that local authorities would be able to delay from 12 to six months, would not give them much of the extra flexibility that we seek to give them to deal with some of the problems that can arise.
Amendment No. 61 might provide authorities with a little flexibility, but not much, as they could inform an applicant shortly after the application was made—within one or two months—that it had been approved, but that they would not pay grant for another four or five months. It would not give authorities the flexibility that they will need. The purpose of our proposal is to enable authorities to exert some control over mandatory grant expenditure, including scheduling payments between financial years if necessary, to help them comply with the requirement placed on them to operate within an annual budget.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister confirm that his objective is to give local authorities flexibility on payment, but that the cost of that will be to slow down the payment of grants to disabled people who need them? Will he spell that out to the House?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the purpose of the proposal is to give local authorities the flexibility that they need to deal with the problems that can sometimes arise. Those who are familiar with the grant system will be familiar with the sort of problems involved. The measure is an open and straightforward way of attempting to deal with those problems.
The hon. Member for Greenwich showed a fondness for Shakespeare. His contribution would best be accompanied by the Shakespearean stage direction of alarum and excursion. The hon. Gentleman raised some alarms that were not necessarily appropriate in this context. We have made it clear throughout the Bill's passage that the provisions in clause 36 are for use only in exceptional circumstances.
I am sympathetic to the point that lies behind amendment No. 105, but I do not believe that the amendment would be an appropriate way of achieving that objective. Placing the phrase "in exceptional circumstances" on the face of the Bill would only store up future problems of interpretation. The scope for judicial review would be potentially wider and the real


beneficiaries might be lawyers rather than grant applicants. The hon. Gentleman and I share common ground in that we both want to reduce the amount of work for lawyers arising from the provisions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to introduce anything that would increase that volume of work.
I take the same view on amendment No. 106. I can foresee only lawyers arguing over the meaning of "detrimental effect". We are, of course, fully alive to the needs of disabled people and we do not want to cause any unnecessary hardship, but we do not think that the amendment resolves them. We have made clear on many previous occasions that the guidance that we shall be issuing to authorities is the more appropriate vehicle for putting across such messages—I continue to hold that view.
Amendment No. 105 is a straightforward and honest attempt to deal with the problems. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill accommodate the sort of concerns about builders that the hon. Member for Greenwich described. We foresee the provision being used only in exceptional circumstances—it is the consequence of having a demand-led grant system. We have tried to face up to the sort of problems that can arise in an honest and straightforward way. All those who want to retain a demand-led grant system while—as the hon. Member for Greenwich said—remaining within the limit of present resources, have to face up to the same problems. We have done so in a straightforward way.

Mr. Raynsford: It is pretty curious to be told by the Minister that the Government are acting in an honest and straightforward way when they are resisting a move to put words used by the Minister in Committee on the face of the Bill. Either he meant what he said in Committee, in which case there is no justification for resisting the amendment, or he did not mean what he said in Committee, in which case the Government are certainly not honest and straightforward. The Minister has to have it one way or the other. If he was speaking the truth in Committee when he said that the provision would be used only in exceptional circumstances, I shall remind him of the purpose of amendment No. 105. Clause 36 states:
Where the local housing authority are obliged to approve an application for a grant by virtue of section 23(1) (mandatory disabled facilities grant), they may do so on terms that payment of the grant, or part of it, will not be made before a date specified".
The only change that amendment No. 105 would make is to insert the words "in exceptional circumstances" after the power given to the local authority. The clause would therefore state that
they may do so in exceptional circumstances on terms that payment of the grant, or part of it, will not be made before a date specified".
That simply follows the undertaking that the Minister gave in Committee.
If the Government resist the amendment, they must explain why the Minister's comments in Committee are not good enough to be included in the Bill. In the absence of an explanation, we shall draw the unfortunate conclusion that the Government speak with forked tongue: they say one thing in Committee but do something else on Report.
5.30 pm
The Minister quoted Shakespeare. He gave the impression that we are expressing false concerns—alarums and excursions. In this context, I can think of only one Shakespearian quotation and it is from Macbeth:
If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly".
We believe that renovation grants for disabled people should be paid—and paid quickly. There should be no delay.
We believe that the House should have an opportunity to vote on the matter, and I commend amendment No.105 to my hon. Friends and to all hon. Members who care about grants for disabled people.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 271.

Division No. 173]
[5.30 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davidson, Ian


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Allen, Graham
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Denham, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dewar, Donald


Austin-Walker, John
Dixon, Don


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dobson, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Donohoe, Brian H


Battle, John
Dowd, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Bennett, Andrew F
Etherington, Bill


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Berry, Roger
Fatchett, Derek


Betts, Clive
Faulds, Andrew


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Keith
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Foulkes, George


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fraser, John


Byers, Stephen
Fyfe, Maria


Caborn, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Garrett, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell-Savours, D N
Godsiff, Roger


Canavan, Dennis
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cann, Jamie
Graham, Thomas


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chidgey, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grocott, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Mike


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Coffey, Ann
Heppell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Connarty, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Corston, Jean
Hood, Jimmy


Cousins, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cummings, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)






Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pike, Peter L


Hutton, John
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Illsley, Eric
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Ingram, Adam
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Purchase, Ken


Jamieson, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rendel, David


Jowell, Tessa
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rogers, Allan


Keen, Alan
Rooker, Jeff


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Rowlands, Ted


Khabra, Piara S
Sedgemore, Brian


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Short, Clare


Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McAllion, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAvoy, Thomas
Soley, Clive


McCartney, Ian
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Spellar, John


Mackinlay, Andrew
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McLeish, Henry
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McMaster, Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


McNamara, Kevin
Stevenson, George


McWilliam, John
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Maddock, Diana
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mahon, Alice
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mandelson, Peter
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thurnham, Peter


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Timms, Stephen


Meacher, Michael
Touhig, Don


Michael, Alun
Trickett, Jon


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Turner, Dennis


Milburn, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Miller, Andrew
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Walley, Joan


Morgan, Rhodri
Wareing, Robert N


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Watson, Mike


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wicks, Malcolm


Mudie, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Murphy, Paul
Winnick, David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wise, Audrey


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wray, Jimmy


O'Hara, Edward
Wright, Dr Tony


Olner, Bill
Young, David (Bolton, SE)


O'Neill, Martin



Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pearson, Ian
Mr. Greg Pope and


Pendry, Tom
Mr. Joe Benton.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baldry, Tony


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bates, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Batiste, Spencer


Amess, David
Bellingham, Henry


Arbuthnot, James
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Ashby, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Body, Sir Richard


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Booth, Hartley


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)





Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Brazier, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Sir Graham
Hannam, Sir John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hawkins, Nick


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Hawksley, Warren


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Heald, Oliver


Burt, Alistair
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Butler, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Butterfill, John
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Sir Robert


Cash, William
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Churchill, Mr
Horam, John


Clappison, James
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Congdon, David
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jenkin, Bernard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jessel, Toby


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cran, James
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Key, Robert


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dover, Den
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan, Alan
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Durant, Sir Anthony
Legg, Barry


Dykes, Hugh
Leigh, Edward


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Elletson, Harold
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lidington, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Luff, Peter


Faber, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fabricant, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacKay, Andrew


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Madel, Sir David


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
Malone, Gerald


Fry, Sir Peter
Mans, Keith


Gallie, Phil
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, Sir George
Marlow, Tony


Garnier, Edward
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Mates, Michael


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Merchant, Piers


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gorst, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)






Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steen, Anthony


Moss, Malcolm
Stephen, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stem, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stewart, Allan


Nicholls, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sumberg, David


Norris, Steve
Sweeney, Walter


Ottaway, Richard
Sykes, John


Page, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paice, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Pawsey, James
Thomason, Roy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Tredinnick, David


Rathbone, Tim
Trend, Michael


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Richards, Rod
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Riddick, Graham
Viggers, Peter


Rifkind Rt Hon Malcolm
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William



Walden, George


Robathan, Andrew



Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Waller, Gary


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Ward, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Waterson, Nigel


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Watts, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wells, Bowen


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Whitney, Ray


Sackville, Tom
Whittingdale, John


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Widdecombe, Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilkinson, John


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Willetts, David


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shersby, Sir Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sims, Sir Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Speed, Sir Keith
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spencer, Sir Derek



Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Noes:


Spring, Richard
Dr. Liam Fox and


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 39

PAYMENT OF GRANT TO CONTRACTOR

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 22, line 7, after second 'grant', insert
'—
(a) by payment direct to the contractor, or
(b)".

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 27 to 29.

Mr. Clappison: Clause 39 currently allows authorities to make payment in the form of an instrument made payable to the contractor, or to pay contractors direct. They may do this only if the applicant is informed before approval of the grant that this will be the method of payment. Concerns have been raised about the necessity

for flexibility in such circumstances and about problems that may occur when an applicant has not been informed that payment will made in this way, so that subsequently problems arise between the applicant and the contractor. We have reflected, and have introduced the amendments to allow the necessary flexibility.
The clause, as amended, will allow authorities to make payment direct to the builder or in the form of an instrument made payable to the builder, if the applicant has been informed before grant approval is given that this will be the method of payment or may be the method of payment.
To safeguard the rights of applicants who may have disputes with the contractor, subsection (3) gives authorities the power, at the applicant's request, to withhold payment to the contractor in these situations and to make payment direct to the applicant instead.
We believe that the amendments introduce the right balance between the rights of the applicant, the contractor and the authority, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister said, the amendment responds to concerns voiced in Committee by the Opposition. We were worried about the possible abuse of the system when people try to pressurise contractors to provide them with additional benefits using the threat of non-payment of the renovation grant that the applicant has received from the authority. There have been a number of documented cases of such abuse, and it is right that local authorities should have the discretion to make payments direct to contractors so as to prevent such abuse.
The Government amendment is therefore sensible; we welcome it and are delighted to find that yet another of Labour's ideas proposed in Committee has been accepted by the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 22, line 11, after `would', insert 'or might'.

No. 28, in page 22, leave out lines 12 to 15.

No. 29, in page 22, line 16, leave out from 'Where' to end of line.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 44

GRANT CONDITIONS: INTRODUCTORY

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 107, in page 26, leave out lines 30 to 33.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 108, in clause 45, page 26, leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert—
'within the period of five years beginning on the certified date, he shall pay to the authority on demand the amount of grant reduced by one fifth for each complete year which has elapsed after the certified date and before disposal.'.
No. 109, in page 27, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—
'within the period of five years beginning on the certified date, he shall pay to the authority on demand the amount of grant reduced by one fifth for each complete year which has elapsed after the certified date and before disposal.'.

Mr. Raynsford: The amendment deals with the possibility that local authorities' powers to attach


conditions to grant aid might be inhibited. The issue was aired in Committee, and the Minister agreed to consider whether local authorities' powers in this respect might be cut across by the provisions of clause 44. He sent me a helpful letter on 28 June containing his response to most of the issues that we raised in Committee and undertook to reflect on them. He has not as yet let us know whether he thinks that there may be a problem.
The purpose of the amendment is to raise the issue once again and give the Minister an opportunity to advise the House whether there is any risk, without the amendment, that local authorities' powers to attach conditions to grants may be prejudiced.
The subsequent amendments deal with the process of reclaiming grant from people who have received it but have moved within the next five years. It seems perfectly fair that people who have moved on swiftly from a property that has been renovated with the aid of grant, whose value has probably increased as a result, should be liable to repay the grant. There are, however, obvious problems with a five-year cut-off, which could result in cases of hardship. We debated various options in Committee and the Minister agreed to look at the matter. He accepted the need for flexibility to ensure that local authorities can use their discretion to waive the repayment requirements in certain cases. All that is welcome.
However, we still believe that there is merit in an alternative approach similar to that which applies in comparable areas, for example where individuals receive assistance under different headings. If they move within a set period they may be obliged to repay not in one fell swoop but a proportion depending on the time that has passed. For example, under the right-to-buy scheme, individuals who receive discounts on the value of their council property are obliged to repay if they move within three years, but are not obliged to repay the whole amount; they must pay a third for each year that falls short of that three-year period. That is a sensible approach and amendments Nos. 108 and 109 would apply a similar repayment obligation to this provision to ensure that a sliding scale operates over a five-year period rather than an obligation to repay the full amount if an applicant moves within that period.
The amendments are sensible. They are designed to ensure that the system works fairly and without anomalies, and that no unreasonable limitations are placed on local authorities' powers to attach conditions to grants. I hope that the Minister will respond positively.

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Member for Greenwich rightly said that I agreed to look again at how clauses 42 and 44 operate together. I first explained how the two clauses operate and, when he pressed me further, I promised to look at the matter again. I did so and came to the same conclusion as I expressed originally in Committee. So I shall explain once again how clauses 42 and 44 operate together, particularly in respect of grant-recoverable conditions.
The section of the Bill that covers grant conditions is clearly titled and includes clauses 44 to 55. Clause 44 must be seen firmly in that context. It covers circumstances where an eligible applicant has undertaken grant-eligible works and received some or all of the grant

moneys. It enforces conditions that apply on approval of a valid grant application and require repayment of the grant if one of the conditions is breached. Such circumstances could arise if the house where works are undertaken is sold or not occupied.
By contrast, clause 42 relates to the initial eligibility for grant. In practice, that means that where a local authority finds out after approval of grant that the application covers either applicants or works that were not eligible for grant assistance, they need not pay the grant or can recover any grant paid. The important point is that the clause applies the eligibility rule, not a grant condition. In such cases, the grant is being recovered because it was wrongly paid to an ineligible applicant or for ineligible works. The grant condition applies where a grant is rightly paid but the condition is breached at a later date. So I assure the hon. Gentleman that the two clauses operate properly together and cover different issues.
Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 would delete the current requirement to repay grant in full, where grant is recovered in the case of relevant disposal of the property; before the certified date for completion of works; or on or after the certified date and within the five-year grant condition period. In their place, the amendments would introduce a taper reducing the repayment necessary by one fifth for each year.
In Committee and again today, the honourable Member for Greenwich sought to draw parallels between the recovery provision for the right-to-buy scheme and that for house renovation grants. I do not accept that a direct comparison can be drawn between those two different regimes. Under the right-to-buy scheme, a property is priced at market value and a discount then offered in recognition of a lengthy period of tenure in the property. The repayment provisions are therefore set to recognise that the discount is offered because of those circumstances. A renovation grant, however, is a one-off payment to help a person improve and potentially increase the value of his or her property. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect an applicant to remain in the property for which he or she sought help for an agreed period after receiving the grant. The proposed repayment condition reflects that.
It is perfectly acceptable for applicants to repay grant in full if they dispose of their property within five years, so long as they are made fully aware of that obligation before they accept grant assistance. We should not overlook the fact that a wide range of circumstances where grant may not be recovered is set out in clauses 45(5) and 54. I shall not go into those, but clause 54 sets out a range of exempt disposals where the issue does not arise and clause 45(5) sets out circumstances in which it is not necessary for the local authority to require all or any of the grant to be repaid.
In addition, authorities may apply to the Secretary of State for consent to exempt cases of hardship. The honourable Member for Greenwich raised concerns over the possible number of such applications, particularly where applicants are required to move for employment reasons. I have written to him confirming that we shall introduce a general consent to cover not only cases where an owner must move for employment reasons but where the sale of a property is required by the lender or some such third party. That consent, coupled with the exemptions that I have already mentioned, will give the


right flexibility for local authorities without undermining the general principle that grant is given to applicants who intend to remain in their property for at least five years.
Concern was expressed in Committee about whether the proposal had been the subject of consultation. I confirm that it was included in our discussion document, "The Future of Private Housing Renewal Strategies", issued last June, and that there was no widespread disagreement with the proposal to introduce repayment of grant in full for disposals within the five-year period.
I hope that, on the basis that I have outlined, particularly the wide range of exemptions that I described, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister does not do justice to his case, although he may do justice to ours. He argues that the analogy with the right-to-buy scheme is not fair because someone who qualifies for the right-to-buy scheme does so as a result of a lengthy period of residence in the accommodation. I remind him that the "lengthy period of residence" is exactly the same as the period of residence required under clause 10 before which people normally become eligible for a renovation grant, so the Minister's argument has reinforced the analogy. We do not accept his view. Mobility is often necessary for all sorts of reasons. I am surprised that he does not accept the fact that people must move for job reasons or changes in domestic circumstances. To block mobility where people have received a renovation grant will disadvantage not only the individuals concerned but the wider economy.
Our alternative proposal would have been a more effective and less bureaucratic way in which to deal with the problem, and consistent with other policy. Incidentally, it would have helped to ease one of today's great housing problems, which the Government have exacerbated: negative equity. People with negative equity, who must also repay renovation grant within five years, will be totally unable to countenance a move. A sliding scale would have reduced the commitment to repay progressively year by year and thus helped to ease that problem.
For all those reasons, it would have been sensible to incorporate the amendment in the Bill. We are surprised at the Government's reluctance to accept it. However, to make progress tonight, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49

CONDITION AS TO AVAILABILITY FOR LETTING: RENOVATION GRANTS

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 29, line 31 , leave out from 'fulfilled' to end of line 35.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31 to 35.

Mr. Clappison: These are technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 33 make clear our intention in clause 49 that repayment of a renovation grant will be triggered by a breach of the condition as to availability of

letting by the owner, not by the failure of a tenant or licensee to provide such information to the owner as may be required.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 29, line 39, leave out from 'dwelling' to end of line 42.

No. 32, in page 30, line 2, at end insert—

`( ) The terms of any tenancy of the dwelling (or any part of it, or any property including the dwelling or part of it) shall be deemed to include a duty on the part of the tenant, if required to do so by the owner of the dwelling, to furnish him with such information as he may reasonably require to enable him to comply with a notice under subsection (2).'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 50

CONDITIONS AS TO OCCUPATION: HMO GRANTS

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 30, line 21, leave out from 'fulfilled' to end of line 25.

No. 34, in page 30, line 29, leave out from 'house' to end of line 32.

No. 35, in page 30, line 39, at end insert—

`( ) The terms of any tenancy of any part of the house shall be deemed to include a duty on the part of the tenant, if required to do so by the owner of the house, to furnish him with such information as he may reasonably require to enable him to comply with a notice under subsection (2).'.—[Mr. Clappison]

Clause 54

MEANING OF EXEMPT DISPOSAL

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 32, line 20, leave out from first 'of to end of line 24 and insert

`any such order as is mentioned in subsection (2A);'.

No. 37, in page 32, line 25, leave out from 'disposal' to end of line 26 and insert `(see subsection (2B));'.

No. 38, in page 33, line 19, at end insert—

'(2A) The orders referred to in subsection (1)(c) are orders under—
(a) section 24 or 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property in connection with matrimonial proceedings);
(b) section 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (orders as to financial provision to be made from estate);
(c) section 17 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property after overseas divorce, &c,); or
(d) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents).'.

No. 39, in page 33, line 19, at end insert—

'(2B) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d) a compulsory disposal is a disposal of property which is acquired compulsorily, or is acquired by a person who has made or would have made, or for whom another person has made or would have made, a compulsory purchase order authorising its compulsory purchase for the purposes for which it is acquired.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 59

INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS: CHAPTER I

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 36, leave out lines 50 to 52 and insert—


'tenant (and expressions relating to tenancies)



—in the context of a tenant's application for a renovation grant
section 7(6)


—in the context of a certificate of intended letting
section 8(3A)


—in the context of an application for a common parts grant
section 14(2)


—in the context of an application for disabled facilities grant
section 19(5)'.


—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 60

GROUP REPAIR SCHEMES

6 pm

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 37, line 14, after 'works', insert `—(a)'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 42 to 44.

Mr. Clappison: The amendments are in response to a proposal put forward in Committee to extend group repair to cover problems of structural instability as well as exterior repairs. As was said in Committee, group repair already allows structural works where they are necessary to give satisfactory effect to other repairs. However, I promised to look again at whether the provisions might be extended to enable the remedying of structural problems where they are not associated with poor repair. The example of a badly leaning chimney was given during the debate.
Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 achieve this by expressly enabling group repair schemes to cover works to render a building structurally stable. Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 explain the sorts of works that can be carried out and make clear that works to render a building stable can include works to the foundations as well as any ancillary works necessary to give satisfactory effect to the main structural works.

Mr. Raynsford: Once again, I welcome the Government's amendment No. 41 as it gives effect to proposals that Opposition Members made in Committee to ensure that problems of structural stability could be dealt with in group repair schemes. The Minister has rightly accepted that there was doubt about this under the previous provisions of the Bill. The amendment is necessary to ensure that group repair schemes can cover the necessary works that relate to the structural stability of the properties and to ensure that good value for money is achieved by such schemes. We welcome the Government's adoption of this amendment and we recognise that it will improve the legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 37, line 15, at end insert `, or

(b) to render the buildings to which the scheme relates structurally stable,

or for both those purposes.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 62

SCHEME WORKS

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 37, line 32, at end insert

`works of the following descriptions.

( ) In the case of works to put in reasonable repair the exterior of the buildings to which the scheme relates, the works must be'.

No. 44, in page 37, line 37, at end insert—

`( ) In the case of works to render the buildings to which the scheme relates structurally stable, the works must be—
(a) works to the structure or to the foundations of the buildings to which the scheme relates, or
(b) other works necessary to give satisfactory effect to such works,
and must be such that on completion of the works the buildings will be structurally stable.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 64

PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN GROUP REPAIR SCHEME

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 39, line 12, at end insert—

'(4A) In subsection (4) references to letting include the grant of a licence to occupy premises.

References in this Chapter to tenants, and other expressions relating to tenancies, in the context of a certificate of intended letting, shall be construed accordingly.'.

No. 46, in page 39, line 27, at end insert—

( ) a health'.authority, special health authority or NHS trust;

No. 121, in page 39, line 27, at end insert—

`( ) a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964:'.

No. 122, in page 39, line 31, at end insert—

`( ) An order under subsection (6)(f) may proceed wholly or in part by reference to the provisions relating to entitlement to housing benefit, or any other form of assistance, as they have effect from time to time.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 75

INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS: CHAPTER II

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 44, line 28, after `tenant', insert '(generally)'.

No. 48, in page 44, line 28, at end insert—


'tenant and related expressions (in the context of a certificate of intended letting)'.
section 64(4A)


—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 78

ASSISTANCE IN RESPECT OF HOUSE-BOATS AND MOBILE HOMES

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 46, line 15, leave out from `has' to 'on' in line 16 and insert
'for that period had its only or main mooring in the same locality'.


Amendment No. 49 arises out of reflection that we gave to the provision of the Bill that concerns the mooring of houseboats. We now accept that the Bill, as drafted, unintentionally restricted the mobility of a houseboat in seeking to define the prior qualifying period for grant assistance. The amendment allows houseboats and their owners to moor happily.

Mr. Raynsford: In Committee, I urged the Minister to look sympathetically at the amendment. I reminded him that floating voters would not be amused if the Government failed to act on this. We are delighted that the Government have recognised the need for a change to ensure more effective help to houseboat owners. We will ensure that houseboat owners know the origin of the amendment: it is the result of a Labour amendment in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 79

POWER TO MAKE FURTHER PROVISION BY REGULATIONS

Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 47, line 2, at end insert:—
'(e) the period from its receipt within which an application for a home repair assistance grant shall be determined; the giving of written notice of determination; and the provision of reasons for any adverse determination.'
Amendment No. 2 ensures that the regulations provide a fair and open method of handling grant applications. The amendment requires local authorities to determine applications promptly, to give written notice of their decisions and, in particular, to give reasons in writing if they refuse assistance. The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to provide for the manner of making an application for home repair assistance, the content of such an application, the procedure for dealing with applications and the method of determining the amount of payment. The procedures have been laid down so definitively that it seems entirely reasonable and modest to me that provision be made for applicants to be given the courtesy of prompt attention and written responses from local authorities. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to my simple plea.

Mr. Clappison: I have some sympathy for the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. The amendment has worthy aims in that it seeks to ensure that the applicant for home repair assistance has his application determined in good time by a local authority and is given any reasons for decisions reached on the application. These circumstances are already provided for in relation to mainstream grants, and we believe that local authorities should operate in a similar manner for home repair assistance. However, we do not believe that an extension to the scope of the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers—as proposed in the hon. Gentleman's amendment—is necessary.
Clause 79(1)(b) already provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to the procedure for dealing with applications. We intend that this will be used to provide that an authority shall inform an applicant in writing and within six months of the receipt of an

application whether it proposes to give assistance and the reasons for a refusal. I hope that this meets the concerns of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Davies: I am almost shocked to hear that relatively pleasing response from the Minister, and I thank him.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 123, in page 47, line 6, at end insert—

'( ) Regulations under subsection (2) may proceed wholly or in part by reference to the provisions relating to entitlement to housing benefit. or any other form of assistance, as they have effect from time to time.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 81

DEFERRED ACTION NOTICES

Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 47, line 42, at end insert—
'(6) A local housing authority shall not serve a deferred notice action notice in respect of a dwelling—house or house in multiple occupation which is occupied by one or more households containing a child under the age of 16.'.
The introduction of deferred action notices is one of the most disreputable provisions of the Bill. They provide a legitimate means for the local authority to avoid all its responsibilities towards the improvement of unfit properties and they take away the moral pressure that should be felt by councillors and Ministers. Nothing will be done, and no one will be held responsible either legally or politically. Local authorities will have been provided with the legal step of issuing a deferred action notice and, once that is done, they need look no more at the problem on their doorstep. These notices can be renewed annually and action can be postponed indefinitely. Frankly, it is a disgrace.
The amendment seeks to mitigate the harm caused by the proposal by saying that the need for remedial action shall not simply be swept beneath the carpet and hidden from view in each and every case. Where properties are inhabited by children under the age of 16, deferred action notices of this kind should not be issued. The responsibility for dealing with the problem should not be ignored by local authorities and by Ministers.

Mr. Clappison: A local authority, when deciding whether to serve a deferred action notice, should have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the interests of the occupants. We believe that the way in which we have approached this involves a degree of flexibility, and that the hon. Gentleman's amendment would cut across the flexibility that we regard as important.
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that clause 81 follows closely the standard terminology used for the exercise of the existing fitness enforcement options of repair, closure and clearance. We consider it important to retain such consistency. In particular, an important principle of fitness enforcement is that of a local authority having to satisfy itself that taking a particular enforcement option represents the most satisfactory course of action. That principle is enshrined in clause 81
The most satisfactory course of action is a broad term, the purpose of which is to enable a local authority to take into account all the relevant circumstances. It is not simply a bricks and mortar consideration. The occupants—be they households with or without children—will be an important consideration. I would be concerned if local authorities were restricted in the way sought by amendment No. 3.
Under clause 85, provision is made for the Secretary of State to give guidance on the most satisfactory course of action in connection with the service of deferred action notices. I have made clear on more than one occasion that we fully intend to issue such guidance. Furthermore, by virtue of the terms of clause 85, local authorities will be required to have regard to the guidance.
Before its issue, the guidance will be subject to the usual consultation with local authority associations and others. That will help to ensure that it is balanced and appropriate and that it provides local authorities with the leeway that they need, given the many varied circumstances that they inevitably encounter in the course of their enforcement activities. The approach has the advantage of being consistent with the other fitness enforcement options, which is important. It allows also for a degree of flexibility that is essential in all areas of fitness enforcement, but local authorities must exercise that flexibility sensibly having regard to clear guidance from the Secretary of State. In those circumstances, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Davies: There is no greater flexibility than giving local authorities the option of opting out of their responsibilities entirely—which is what the Bill is all about. The Minister speaks warm words and seeks to provide reassurance. However, he does not go far enough and I do not wish to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 47, line 42, at end insert—
`(6) Where a local housing authority has served a deferred action notice, they shall consider the provision of appropriate professional, technical and administrative services, as provided under section 169 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to the person on whom the notice has been served.
(7) Local housing authorities shall have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State with regard to action under (6) above.'.
With this amendment, we offer a positive proposal to mitigate the effects of the deferred action notice. As the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) pointed out, the deferred action notice is an unsatisfactory feature of the Bill—it is, in effect, a counsel of despair. Under the deferred action notice, the local authority will say to the individual, "We have inspected your house and it is unfit for human habitation, but we don't intend to do anything about it". That is clearly an entirely unsatisfactory and inadequate response to poor housing conditions.
Amendment No. 110 seeks to provide an alternative option, which can help in certain cases, to ensure that something is done. It does not seek to reverse the process—we have argued that point and we do not agree

with the Government. In this amendment, we seek simply to mitigate some of the worst consequences of the legislation as drafted. Amendment No. 110 states:
Where a local authority has served a deferred action notice, it shall consider providing appropriate professional. technical and administrative services … to the person on whom the notice has been served.
In other words, local authorities shall provide advice and assistance to help people learn what can be done to remedy the problem. There are excellent staying-put projects in many areas—they are sometimes called by different names—that are designed to assist people living in bad housing conditions. They identify renovation options and assist people in going through the process— for example, they provide assistance in applying for grants where they are available and in dealing with builders. They enable people to obtain the technical help and support that they need in order to have their homes improved.
Referral to one such agency—whether they are called care and repair or home repair agencies—and assistance from that source could be the solution for many people. It is much more positive than simply serving a deferred action notice. During the Committee's consideration, the Minister spoke some warm words. He said that he was sympathetic to our argument. On 11 June he said that he had "some sympathy" with the intention behind the amendment that we moved at that stage. He said that he would be
happy to consider including in the guidance that we shall issue encouragement to authorities to consider the desirability of using their powers … to make available the sort of assistance envisaged."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 11 June 1996; c. 235]
We are pleased to hear that and our amendment is designed to give effect to the Minister's comments. The first subsection says that it is appropriate for the authority to consider providing such services and the second subsection says that the local authority
shall have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State".
We are once again giving effect to the Minister's words and we hope—perhaps it is an unreasonable expectation—that he will want to see the provisions that he advocated in Committee on the face of the Bill. I fear that he will disappoint us, but I live in hope. The amendment has a great deal to commend it.

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Member for Greenwich said that in earlier exchanges we recognised that it might be desirable for local authorities to consider making available, through their powers under section 169, the assistance that is envisaged under amendment No. 110. I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman a bit, because we differ about the need to impose it as a duty upon local authorities. Considering whether to make available such assistance should properly be a matter for each local authority to decide in the light of what are inevitably varied circumstances in each case.
Some circumstances might point to the desirability of making available the assistance envisaged. However, there might be circumstances in which it would inappropriate for a local authority to spend time and resources considering whether to make assistance available. The key point is that local authorities will be best placed to make such judgments. We do not believe that they will be helped in that process by being placed under the duties that amendment No. 110 would impose.

Mr. Clive Betts: Does the Minister accept that the amendment places no obligation on local authorities other than to consider whether help should be given? It does not force local authorities to provide any assistance: it merely states that they should go through the process of considering whether assistance is appropriate. Surely that is not too much to ask when someone is living in an unfit property and cannot afford to improve it.

Mr. Clappison: I have just covered exactly that point. I described how it could be onerous to require local authorities to consider the matter in each case. I dealt with that point and I hope that the hon. Gentleman was listening.
I have already given an undertaking that our guidance to local authorities about the new private sector renewal regime will encourage them to consider the desirability of using their section 169 powers to provide assistance of the sort envisaged when serving a deferred action notice. That guidance will be subject to consultation with local authority associations and others. That will help to ensure that a sensible balance is achieved. I do not believe that we should shackle authorities unnecessarily by going further than that. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister anticipates our disappointment. He once again finds it difficult to agree in the House to a formulation that is based on his comments in Committee. We believe that it is appropriate for Government to encourage care and repair agencies and the amendment would assist that process in a positive way without burdening local authorities unduly. It is a modest amendment that is designed to ease a thoroughly undesirable and retrograde measure: the introduction of deferred action notices. We regret that the Government have responded in such a negative manner but, in order to make progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 82

SERVICE OF DEFERRED ACTION NOTICES.

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 48, line 12, at end insert `—(a)'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 51.

Mr. Clappison: Clause 82(4) requires a local authority to serve a copy of a deferred action notice on any person who has an interest in the premises concerned, whether as a freeholder, mortgagee or lessee. I undertook in Committee to consider whether that requirement should apply also to tenants and licensees.
I can confirm that the provisions in clause 82(4) already cover tenants—they are embraced by the terms of the Housing Act 1985. On the question of licensees, we think that it would impose an unreasonable burden on local authorities to require them to serve a copy of a deferred action notice on licensees. They do not have an interest

in land—technically, many visitors to a property can be licensees. It would obviously not be sensible, and local authorities could face difficulties if they were required to serve a copy of a notice on such people.
Therefore, we think that a sensible balance in the case of licensees is for local authorities to have the power to serve a copy of a notice rather than be placed under a duty to do so. On the basis of that sensible proposal, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich will accept the amendment.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister will recall that when we considered an earlier group of amendments, including amendment No. 19, I highlighted the fact that the Government thought it right at that stage to put on the face of the Bill an amendment that said that references to a "tenancy" should include the grant of a licence. In other words, in that context, licensees are treated in the same way as tenants. I gave the Minister advance notice that I would ask him why the same principle does not apply to amendments Nos. 50 and 51.
Many licensees live in dangerous, substandard accommodation, and if despite their properties being unfit, the local authority intends to do nothing about them, it is only reasonable that they should be formally notified of the fact rather being left in the lurch. The fact that the properties that licensees occupy are death traps is of as much concern to them as it is to tenants. The right to notification should apply in all cases to licensees as well as to tenants. Ruling rule out licensees because they do not have a property interest shows a wrong sense of priorities.

Mr. Clappison: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this. The earlier circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman referred concerned eligibility to apply for grants. In such cases, the identities of the people applying for grants are known, whether they are tenants or licensees. The problem in this case is the practicability of requiring local authorities to serve notices on licensees which, as I have already described, can involve a wide range of people in relation to the property. That would put a burden on local authorities.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister does not respond to the crucial point that licensees who live in substandard accommodation in which their lives are at risk because of defective fire precautions or gas appliances have every right to be treated on a par with tenants in the same position. To discriminate between them on the basis that tenants have a technical financial interest in the property is an appalling failure to give proper priority to individual lives and public health considerations. We greatly regret the Government's failure to look after the interests of licensees in the same way that they are prepared to look after the interests of other people. This matter will need to be addressed again.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 51, in page 48, line 15, at end insert `, and

(b) they may serve a copy of the notice on any person having a licence to occupy the premises.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 83

APPEALS AGAINST DEFERRED ACTION NOTICES

Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 48, line 18, after 'aggrieved', insert
'(including any occupier of the premises)'.
Clause 83(1) gives the person aggrieved by a deferred action notice the right to appeal to the county court. That is welcome, but I suspect that its positive effects will be limited. However, let us be grateful for small mercies. The amendment would allow not only the owner but the occupier of an unfit property to challenge the issue of a deferred action notice. I invite the Minister to give one substantial reason why the occupier should not have that right. Better still, I ask him to accept the amendment.

Mr. Clappison: Amendment No. 4 would broaden the right of appeal against a deferred action notice to include any occupier of the premises. It is right that there should be a right of appeal against any fitness enforcement action. That is why we have included a right of appeal against deferred action notices. However, the right of appeal against the various fitness enforcement options should be consistent. The right of appeal in the case of a deferred action notice is consistent with that conferred on the other fitness enforcement options of repair, closure and clearance.
As I said in responding to amendment No. 3, in serving a deferred action notice, a local authority will be required to satisfy itself that such an approach is the most satisfactory course of action. In reaching that decision, the occupants will clearly be one of the important considerations. We shall make that point clear in the guidance to which I referred and to which local authorities will be required to have regard. It will provide an added safeguard against local authorities acting recklessly. Coupled with the consistency that I mentioned, that argues strongly for the right of appeal under clause 83 remaining unchanged. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Davies: Deferred action notices are a new concept. I see no need for consistency. The other proposals that the Minister highlighted suggest that local authorities will take action; the whole purpose of deferred action notices is to give them a chance not to take action. This case should be judged differently. However, I recognise that I am unlikely to succeed in a Division, so I will not press the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 84

REVIEW OF DEFERRED ACTION NOTICES

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 49, line 2, leave out 'twelve months' and insert '2 years'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 53 to 55.

Mr. Clappison: We undertook in Committee to reflect on the maximum period for reviewing a deferred action

notice. Bearing in mind the need to strike a sensible balance between the duty of formal enforcement action and the burdens that that can place on local authorities, we have concluded that 24 months is an appropriate period.

Mr. Raynsford: It falls to me only to note that this is yet another Labour amendment in Committee that has been accepted in full by the Government. They may have changed the words but the effect is exactly that of our amendment. We regard this as another way in which we have helped to improve the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 53, in page 49, line 4, leave out 'twelve months' and insert '2 years'.

No. 54, in page 49, line 4, at end insert—

'The Secretary of State may by order amend this subsection so as to specify such other period or periods as he considers appropriate.'.

No. 55, in page 49, line 5, leave out 'They' and insert `The authority'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 95

PARSONAGES, CHARITIES, &C.

Amendment made: No. 56, in page 54, line 39, leave out from `schemes)' to end of line 2 on page 55 and insert

', in section 64(2) (persons eligible to participate in group repair scheme as assisted participants), the requirement in paragraph (a) that a person give an owner-occupation certificate or a certificate of intended letting does not apply if—
(a) the person concerned is a charity or the trustee of a charity, or
(b) the dwelling is the residence house of an ecclesiastical benefice;
and the requirement in paragraph (b) that a person give a certificate of future occupation does not apply if the person concerned is a charity or the trustee of a charity.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 101

MINOR DEFINITIONS: PART I

Amendments made: No. 57, in page 57, line 5, at end insert

'and includes any body established by order under section 88 of the Housing Act 1988'.

No. 58, in page 57, line 7, leave out from first "introductory' to 'Chapter' in line 8 and insert

'tenancy" and "introductory tenant" have the same meaning as in'.

No. 59, in page 57, line 14, at end insert

'and includes any body established by order under paragraph 7 of Schedule 9 to the New Towns Act 1981'.

No. 60, in page 57, line 41, at end insert

'and includes any body established by order under section 165B of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 102

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 58, line 6, leave out from 'after' to end of line 14 and insert
'the commencement of this Part.'.


This is the last amendment to part I and deals with the timetable for the implementation of its provisions. As hon. Members know, the Bill ends mandatory renovation grants and there is a malign implication because it will have a retrospective effect. Provided that the Bill receives Royal Assent before 2 August, anyone who has applied for a mandatory renovation grant since 2 February this year will be deemed to be ineligible for one. That will apply even though such people applied in good faith when the existing legislation stated that they were entitled to mandatory grants. That right is being taken away. The dismantling of mandatory grants without replacement is bad enough; taking away the entitlement retrospectively is unacceptable.
We will vote on the amendment if the Government do not accept it not only to show our disapproval of the withdrawal of such grants without a coherent alternative to replace them but, above all, because it demonstrates the Government's untrustworthiness in taking away from people a statutory right months after they should have been entitled to receive it. The provisions are objectionable but their retrospective application is deplorable. The amendment seeks to remedy that serious defect in the Bill.

Mr. Clappison: We are, of course, putting in place an effective system for dealing with renovation grants. In the circumstances it was appropriate to set a clear date for the new arrangements to come into operation. That is achieved by the present wording of clause 101.
My Department wrote to all local authorities on 2 February this year to inform them of the changes proposed and of the transitional arrangements for each type of grant under the house renovation grant system. We drew to their attention the fact that they should inform grant applicants of the details and time scale of the proposed changes. That has given the maximum possible notice to local authorities and applicants of how the provisions of part I will be implemented. The proposals give local authorities the best opportunity to organise their work load and manage their resources and allow all grant applicants to be treated on the same basis.
By retaining the availability of mandatory grant for all applications made up to the commencement of part I, amendment No. 111 would encourage a rush of applications from applicants hoping to beat the deadline. That would create work load problems for local authorities and many other difficulties. The arrangements proposed are fair to local authorities because they allow them to programme their expenditure and use resources to the best effect and fair to applicants because they allow all applicants to be treated on the same basis.

Mr. Betts: The Minister says that all applicants will be treated equally and fairly. Surely everything depends on the progress that each local authority makes in processing the grants. Where processing is conducted more quickly, applicants might find that the same date is treated differently in different parts of the country.

Mr. Clappison: No. Applicants will be treated in the same way because after 2 February all applications will be dealt with as applications for discretionary grant unless a six-month period of consideration has already elapsed. There is consistency and clearness.
The proposed provisions allow for any valid application for mandatory grant submitted more than six months before commencement of the new provisions to be dealt with under the 1989 legislation. That will apply to all those who have submitted valid mandatory grant applications. Grant eligibility will not be removed from any potential applicant. Local authorities will still be required to consider any valid grant application made to them and may give a discretionary grant where that accords with their strategy and priorities for the area.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister has confirmed in his concluding remarks that the Government are engaged in a policy that is discreditable and one of despair. The Government are abandoning the mandatory renovation grant framework because it was inadequately funded. Queues of applicants were waiting for a grant that could not be delivered under the system that the Government put in place only seven years ago. They are abandoning that system and that is an admission of failure.
Even worse, the Government are abandoning the system retrospectively. They are removing a statutory right to a mandatory grant. They are removing entitlement retrospectively from 2 February. That is not a principle that commends itself to the House. It is not a principle that commends itself to the Labour party. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Government by supporting amendment No. 111.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 273.

Division No. 174]
[6.31 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chidgey, David


Adams, Mrs Irene
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ainger, Nick
Clapham, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Austin-Walker, John
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barron, Kevin
Coffey, Ms Ann


Battle, John
Cohen, Harry


Bayley, Hugh
Connarty, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Stuart
Corston, Jean


Bennett, Andrew F
Cousins, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, John


Berry, Roger
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Blunkett, David
Darling, Alistair


Boateng, Paul
Davidson, Ian


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Denham, John


Byers, Stephen
Dewar, Donald


Caborn, Richard
Dixon, Don


Callaghan, Jim
Dobson, Frank


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell-Savours, D N
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Canavan, Dennis
Eagle, Ms Angela


Cann, Jamie
Eastham, Ken


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Etherington, Bill






Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fatcnett, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Faulds, Andrew
McMaster, Gordon


Fisher, Mark
MacShane, Denis


Flynn, Paul
McWilliam, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Madden, Max


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maddock, Diana


Foulkes, George
Mahon, Alice


Fraser, John
Mandelson, Peter


Fyfe, Maria
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Galloway, George
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Gapes, Mike
Meacher, Michael


Garrett, John
Michael, Alun


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Milburn, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A
Miller, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morgan, Rhodri


Gordon, Mildred
Morley, Elliot


Graham, Thomas
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Grocott, Bruce
Mudie, George


Gunnell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hain, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Hall, Mike
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hanson, David
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Hara, Edward


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Olner, Bill


Henderson, Doug
O'Neill, Martin


Heppell, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pearson, Ian


Hinchliffe, David
Pendry, Tom


Hodge, Margaret
Pickthall, Colin


Hoey, Kate
Pike, Peter L


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pope, Greg


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Hood, Jimmy
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Primarolo, Dawn


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Randall, Stuart


Hutton, John
Raynsford, Nick


Illsley, Eric
Reid, Dr John


Ingram, Adam
Rendel, David


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jamieson, David
Rogers, Allan


Janner, Greville
Rooker, Jeff


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Sheerman, Barry


Jowell, Tessa
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Keen, Alan
Short, Clare


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Khabra, Piara S
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Soley, Clive


Kirkwood, Archy
Spearing, Nigel


Lewis, Terry
Spellar, John


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Litherland, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Livingstone, Ken
Steinberg, Gerry


Llwyd, Elfyn
Stevenson, George


Loyden, Eddie
Stott, Roger


Lynne, Ms Liz
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McAllion, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McCartney, Ian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Macdonald, Calum
Timms, Stephen


McKelvey, William
Tipping, Paddy





Touhig, Don
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Trickett, Jon
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Turner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Vaz, Keith
Wise, Audrey


Walker Rt Hon Sir Harold
Wray, Jimmy



Wright, Dr Tony


Walley, Joan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wareing, Robert N



Watson, Mike
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wicks, Malcolm
Mr. Joe Benton and


Wigley, Dafydd
Ms Janet Anderson.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Devlin, Tim


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Duncan, Alan


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Amess, David
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dykes, Hugh


Ashby, David
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evennett, David


Bates, Michael
Faber, David


Batiste, Spencer
Fabricant, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bendall, Vivian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fishbum, Dudley


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forth, Eric


Body, Sir Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Booth, Hartley
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fry, Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gallie, Phil


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, Sir George


Bright, Sir Graham
Garnier, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gillan, Cheryl


Browning, Mrs Angela
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Budgen, Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burns, Simon
Gorst, Sir John


Burt, Alistair
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Butler, Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butterfill, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cash, William
Hampson, Dr Keith


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hannam, Sir John


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hargreaves, Andrew


Churchill, Mr
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Clappison, James
Hawkins, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawksley, Warren


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hayes, Jerry


Coe, Sebastian
Heald, Oliver


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Congdon, David
Hendry, Charles


Conway, Derek
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hicks, Sir Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Couchman, James
Horam, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)






Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sims, Sir Roger


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Legg, Barry
Speed, Sir Keith


Leigh, Edward
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Sproat, Iain


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


MacKay, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sykes, John


Madel, Sir David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mates, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Merchant, Piers
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Trend, Michael


Moate, Sir Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Viggers, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Moss, Malcolm
Walden, George


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waller, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Ward, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waterson, Nigel


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Page, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Paice, James
Whittingdale, John


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Widdecombe, Ann


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pawsey, James
Wilkinson, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Willetts, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilshire, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'id)


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Rathbone, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Richards, Rod



Riddick, Graham
Tellers for the Noes:


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Mr. Roger Knapman and


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 2

LIABILITY OF ADJUDICATOR

`. Neither the adjudicator nor any employee or agent of the adjudicator shall be liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of their functions as adjudicator or employee or agent of the adjudicator, unless the act or omission is in bad faith.'.—[Mr. Rarnsford.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 24—Liability of adjudicator (No. 2)—
'Neither the adjudicator nor any employee or agent of the adjudicator should be liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of their function as adjudicator or employee or agent of the adjudicator, unless the act or omission is in bad faith.'.
Government amendments Nos. 88 and 90.

Mr. Raynsford: We now reach part II of the Bill, which deals with proposals for changes in the contractual arrangements in the construction industry. Hon. Members will be aware of the background to the proposed legislation and the important study carried out by Sir Michael Latham into the construction industry, resulting in the report entitled "Constructing the Team", which was published some two years ago.
The report, which has been widely welcomed, set a series of objectives to tackle problems and to lay the foundations for a more successful, less confrontational industry in the future. We all owe a great debt of gratitude to Sir Michael for his work, both on the report and on the follow-up. On behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute to him for the way in which he addressed key issues and sought to lay the foundations for a better future for an industry which is extremely important to our national life but which has gone through some hard times in recent years.
One of the most crucial of Sir Michael's recommendations was a new approach to dispute resolution, and in particular to the role of adjudication as a means of providing a fast track for tackling disputes that might otherwise threaten to halt work on a construction contract. We all know—from our constituency experience and from knowledge of the industry—that, all too often, such disputes have been ruinously damaging to the industry, in terms of the financial implications, its credibility and morale. We have to find a way to ensure a better future for it and a better way forward without the parties rushing into court at the first opportunity. The concept of fast-track adjudication as a means of providing a quicker and better route to dispute resolution at an early stage of proceedings is therefore widely welcomed by the entire industry.
The Latham recommendations have in theory been endorsed by the Government, but the process of putting them into effect has been somewhat tortuous. When the


Bill was presented in another place, it was accompanied by a draft scheme that aroused widespread concern in the industry, because it was based on arbitration procedures rather than adjudication. As a result of the outcry that greeted the scheme, and as a result of the efforts of many noble Lords, the Government agreed to withdraw it and think again. However, uncertainty has remained about whether the Government would move forward in the right way with a proper scheme that allowed adjudication to be put on the statute book.
Considerable progress was made in Committee. A series of amendments were made to ensure that the definitions were clarified and procedures sharpened, and to try to give effect to Sir Michael's recommendations as expeditiously as possible. In many respects we succeeded: the Bill is improving. That is not to say that there is no scope for further improvement, but it is much better than it was when it was introduced in another place. There is, however, one important unresolved issue, relating to the immunity to be enjoyed by the adjudicator.
If adjudication is to work, it is essential for the adjudicator to enjoy immunity from litigation. Otherwise, he will not be able to act quickly and expeditiously, but will be constantly looking over his shoulder, worrying about the prospect of a writ being issued by one of the parties who is aggrieved by the way in which he is proceeding. If we want swift adjudication, the adjudicator must have immunity. That is accepted as a principle: the Government recognise it. As originally presented, the Bill provided for immunity as part of the contract between the contracting parties—the contract that would be the subject of adjudication. There is a problem, however.
The problem is that immunity given only by contract is binding only on the contracting parties. That is fine in terms of the two parties whose dispute is being resolved, but it does not extend to other parties who may also be involved. As the industry has pointed out, there is still scope for problems, because other parties will be unhappy at the outcome—or even the procedure—of adjudication, and will seek to challenge it. If that possibility exists, and the adjudicator feels nervous about the prospect of being sued, the whole process may be jeopardised. It might well be impossible to get an adjudicator to serve in the first place, and, even if one is appointed, he will inevitably be inhibited by worries about the possibility of litigation.
In an industry that is not agreed on every aspect of the legislation, there is almost complete unanimity on the issue of immunity for the adjudicator. The Association of Consulting Engineers writes:
The Government do not seem to understand the problem. If the immunity is contractual, it only binds the parties to the adjudication. However, others—third parties—may say in law that they relied on the adjudicator's decision. If an adjudication takes place between a main contractor and a client, it is certainly possible that consultants (the architect or engineer administering the contract) or sub-contractors, for example, will rely on that decision, or will allege that they have. On the basis of reliance"—
the association then cites the case of Hadley Bryne v. Heller—
a third party can sue in tort. It is not known what the courts would make of such claims, but there is no question that adjudicators should not be vulnerable to the possibility of claims being made against them in this way.

The Construction Industry Council reinforces the point, writing:
It is pleasing that the Government has recognised that the adjudicator requires immunity. Having recognised this need, it is idiosyncratic that the immunity is then limited. As stated earlier, third parties will be affected by adjudicator's decisions. The adjudicator cannot be protected from the actions of a third party by a contractual immunity.
In its list of key priorities for amendments on Report, the Institution of Civil Engineers stresses the need for a
statutory immunity for adjudicators and employees or agents, save for acts of bad faith".
The Association of Consultant Architects writes that it has
seen the final version of the amendments dated 2nd July which in general seem satisfactory apart from the fact that the Adjudicator will only have immunity under contract and not statutory immunity.
The ACA believe that this will affect his ability to make a rapid and effective decision knowing that he could be sued by third parties who are affected by that decision.
There we have it: clear, unanimous evidence from the industry that statutory immunity is required. Contractual immunity is not sufficient.
In Committee, we tabled an amendment to remove contractual immunity, which was carried. Unfortunately, a parallel amendment to institute statutory immunity was not. The purpose of new clause 2 is to remedy that defect. The new clause establishes a statutory immunity applying to adjudicators, preventing them from being sued by any party. It is modelled on procedures that apply equally to arbitrators. I see no possible objection to the existence of statutory immunity; indeed, I can envisage many problems for the industry without it. This is a commonsense new clause, which gives effect to the recommendations of the Latham report. It has the backing of the industry, and would make the adjudication system work in principle. I strongly commend it to the House.

The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): Our debate on part II began with some scene-setting by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). I do not dissent from the scene that he set, but I wish to colour it in a little on the basis of my experience of working in the construction industry before I came to the House.
The curse of that industry, which makes it not only controversial but less competitive than it might otherwise be, is a tendency to spend a good deal of time arguing, and to spend more time on litigation than on research and development. That is what these measures aim to put right, in so far as it can be put right. Not all the Latham process consists of legislation; much of it has been addressed to the industry, and we expect the industry to play its part in reforming itself in order to deliver a much better service in future.
Let me associate myself with the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Greenwich to Sir Michael Latham, which is wholly appropriate. When this process is over, he may have not only helped to reform the industry in which he, too, spent a good deal of time, but added to the English language: I have no doubt that such words as "Lathamisation" will eventually appear in the dictionary.
It appears from what the hon. Member for Greenwich has said—and, indeed, from what is said outside the House—that an adjudicator should enjoy immunity in regard to actions taken, or not taken, during adjudication


proceedings, as long as he has performed his duties in good faith. That almost goes without saying. The dispute is about the extent of that immunity. We believe that, as adjudication is a contractual process, the adjudicator's immunity should be restricted to the contract in question, and that any protection from actions taken by third parties should be a matter for contracting parties.
We have been over this ground at some length in Committee, and I do not wish to detain the House for longer than necessary. However, I shall briefly state the reasons why I cannot accept new clause 2 or new clause 24—which would give the adjudicator statutory immunity—and why I support amendment No. 88, which would require him to be given immunity under the contract. Amendment No. 90 is consequential on that.
Adjudication is not practised nearly enough in the construction industry, but it is not unknown. It is a recognised dispute resolution procedure, which is employed on hundreds of contracts each year. To say that such procedures cannot take place without statutory immunity must therefore be nonsense: they have worked perfectly well so far.
Let me also remind the House that the adjudicator is a creature of the contract. Interests from all sides of the construction industry have stressed throughout our proceedings on the Bill that the adjudicator should not be confused with an arbitrator, whose quasi-judicial role is spelt out at length in statute. That point was laboured by the hon. Member for Greenwich. It strikes me as entirely appropriate that a statutory arbitrator should enjoy statutory immunity, but that an adjudicator—whose existence is to be almost entirely governed by the contract—should look to the contract for protection from third parties. In a nutshell, we do not want the adjudicator to wear a wig and gown, or to behave as if he did. That could happen in a number of ways, the most obvious of which is that parties could indemnify the adjudicator. He might simply decide to rely on insurance, the premiums for which would be reflected in his fees.
7 pm
My main concern about statutory immunity is the impact that it could have on third parties. It would not be right for people to be able to make contracts that took away the rights of third parties. Plainly, they must be allowed to seek redress for actions that were taken under a contract to which they were not party and which had affected them adversely. We think that it would be difficult for someone to establish that an adjudicator had a general duty of care to third parties and that a third party would do better to pursue any claim against the parties to the main contract. We would not wish the main parties in those circumstances to be able to shelter in some way behind the statutory immunity of an adjudicator.
I am aware that some construction professionals from whose ranks it is likely that adjudicators will be drawn have been pressing for statutory immunity, but the position is perhaps a little more complex than the hon. Member for Greenwich has been prepared to admit. The hon. Gentleman cited the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Construction Industry Council, which have also written to me at some length about the need to protect the rights of third parties. I am sure that the professionals would agree that third parties will be far less inclined to pursue an adjudicator if his decisions are only ever of

temporary effect. That, of course, is what the House accepted when it agreed to amendment No. 87. When I met representatives of the CIC recently, they were good enough to confirm that that amendment made much difference to the strength with which they were pursuing the argument.
I hope that what I have said will be enough to persuade the hon. Member for Greenwich that the matter is being taken too far and that he should not press his new clause.

Mr. William O'Brien: The Minister said that he had consulted the Construction Industry Council. Page 4 of the CIC's letter dated 2 July, which has been sent to hon. Members, refers to the architect as the third party. The architect plays a major part in many construction projects, but he would not be included in the adjudicator's programme if the new clause was not accepted. Will the Minister comment on that paragraph about the architect in the letter and say how it would apply under his proposals?

Mr. Jones: I am a little puzzled as to what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. The behaviour of the contractor or the contractee can have consequences for third parties. For example, an adjudication could stop work on a project, leaving a road totally closed to a third party such as a company or a farm. If the farmer or the company choose to pursue legal action, they will be unlikely pursue it against the adjudicator because his is only a temporary binding ruling. They are much more likely to pursue a case against the contractor or contractee. That is why we think that third-party rights are extremely important and why, despite the eloquence of the hon. Member for Greenwich, we do not think that there is as much of a problem as he suggests.

Mr. David Chidgey: I, too, should like to express my appreciation of the work of Sir Michael Latham and of the construction industry over the past few years in trying to tease out and produce a workable construction contract. The construction industry is concerned about the limiting of immunity to the contract rather than to the statute. I was involved in the construction industry—I was a professional engineer for some 26 years and dealt with construction contracts of all sizes, from multi-million-pound motorways to small housing refurbishment. On the basis of that experience, I am concerned that the Bill is likely to be unworkable.
The Minister should reflect on three matters. An unworkable situation could arise because of the difficulties of appointing an adjudicator; because of the vulnerability of small firms; and because of the risk of third-party claims. I shall deal first with the difficulty of appointing adjudicators. The Minister said that adjudicators were likely to seek some form of indemnity to protect their interests. If an adjudicator is liable to claims outside the contract and if he does not have immunity in law, how will we find people who are prepared to take that considerable risk?
In the context of the vulnerability of small firms, unless adjudicators have immunity in law, they will want to be indemnified for the risks that they will have to carry. That could be extremely costly for the small firms, the sub-contractors that we are trying to protect in this contract relationship from the heavyweights, the main contractors who tend to call the shots. When an adjudicator demands recompense for the high indemnity


costs that he will have to bear, small firms may find themselves unable to afford to go to him and will not be able to pursue the adjudication process against the main contractor. Does not that negate the whole process that we are trying to establish?
Finally, I am concerned about the risk of third-party claims. The Minister spoke eloquently about his concern for the contractual relationship and for third parties. If the adjudicator has no immunity from third-party claims, there will be a distinct possibility or probability that he will become liable for the actions of others within the contract because he has had to adjudicate on a claim within it. I shall give a simple example from my professional experience.
A design failure may result in the collapse of a structure, causing public injury. The Minister may know from his experience that, during the design process, the construction drawings for any project must be signed by a chartered engineer who is responsible in law for the accuracy and viability of the design. If the design fails, the engineer is personally liable and may be guilty of criminal negligence. The adjudicator may try to resolve a dispute over, for example, a design condition in a design-and-build contract. If there is a failure after his decision, is the adjudicator liable for consequent third-party claims that would previously have been the responsibility of the design engineer?
For those reasons, I ask the Minister to reconsider and to provide statutory immunity to adjudicators to make the contract work.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I can see no reason why there should be any difficulty in appointing an adjudicator. My postbag is full of letters from people who, as individuals or professionals, state that they are admirably suited to be adjudicators. Not all of them were Liberal Members. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) will appreciate, they would not be very well qualified, because adjudicators have to make a decision.
The insurance market will be perfectly capable of developing a scheme to cover adjudicators. However, it is most unlikely that anyone would bring a case against an adjudicator.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the vulnerability of small companies because of the high costs if insurance were taken out. Of course, there will be many parties to contracts. Sometimes they will be of considerable financial means and sometimes of less financial means, depending on the size of the service that they provide and the complexity of the contract. Normally, the contract's overall costs will be apportioned between the parties on a recognisable basis. It is most unlikely that all the costs will fall, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, on one small company that is party to those contracts.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about liability for what others do. In the example that he gave, where a building had collapsed or something else had gone drastically wrong, and the incident caused death, injury or various other serious consequences, and where the adjudicator had ruled on the matter, surely the most likely action would be to pursue the person who was thought to be guilty of that particular fault in the contract. Why

should the adjudicator be pursued? It is an improbable circumstance, but I see that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene to reinforce his point.

Mr. Chidgey: I thank the Minister for giving way and for asking me to comment. My concern is that, by not providing the adjudicator with indemnity, we could visit on him the responsibilities of others, because he has had to be involved in making a judgment on the design process as part of the contract.

Mr. Jones: I go back to what I said in my opening remarks about having to prove the adjudicator's responsibility. Before a third party could succeed in a claim against an adjudicator, he would first have to establish that the adjudicator owed a duty to him, and not to the contracting parties. That would be extremely difficult to prove. The adjudicator has taken on a duty to the parties, but that is different from having a general responsibility to third parties.
All in all, therefore, the fears that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) expressed are not real. What is a real fear, however, is that we could end up, not with adjudication, but with arbitration by the back door, with the adjudicator promoted to being an arbitrator, with all the legal paraphernalia that go with that. That is not what the industry wants, but it is the unintended consequence of the direction for which the hon. Members for Greenwich and for Eastleigh have been arguing. That is why, in my discussions with the CIC and others, the point has softened somewhat, as we have moved away from a long-term, binding adjudication towards the short fix—sorry, the dirty fix—that the industry asked for. I hope, therefore, that I have reassured both hon. Gentlemen. It is an important point, but their worries are misplaced.

Mr. Raynsford: I am not in the least convinced by what the Minister said. He has conjured the image that we are seeking to bring in arbitration by the back door. The opposite is the case. We have consistently argued for adjudication to be separated from arbitration and for its distinct role to be recognised. We are delighted to have made much progress in that direction. The new clause is designed to go a little further.
The Minister prayed in aid the Construction Industry Council. May I remind him of what the CIC told Members of Parliament in its most recent letter, dated 2 July? After describing the reasons that I alluded to, it says:
There is only one solution to this conundrum and that is to provide a full statutory immunity for adjudicators.
That is what it wants. That is what we want. It makes sense.
The Minister argued that the adjudicator was a creature of the contract, so it would be inappropriate to give the adjudicator statutory immunity. That is not so. The Minister will know that clause 108(3) clearly states:
If the contract does not comply with the requirements of subsections (1) and (2), the adjudication provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts apply.
A statutory basis for adjudication is provided for in the Bill and there is no justification for not giving statutory immunity to adjudicators.
The Minister said that he did not want adjudicators having wigs and gowns. I could not agree with him more. We do not want that, but he will be aware that, if we do


not pass the new clause, the adjudicator will be constantly worried that he will be pursued by gentlemen or ladies in wigs and gowns because he will be liable to be sued by third parties, a point made forcefully in the debate.
7.15 pm
The Minister's final line of defence is to say, "What is all the fuss about? The adjudicator is doing something only of a time-limited nature and the matters will all be sorted out by arbitration or litigation later." That may be the case, but while there are fears that people will not serve as adjudicators because they are nervous about being sued, or while they will serve only if they are covered by highly expensive insurance policies, the benefit of quick, fast-track and relatively cheap adjudication as an alternative to lengthy, cumbersome and expensive litigation or arbitration will not be achieved. In the new clause, we are arguing for simple, fast-track adjudication, with proper statutory immunity. That is what we and the industry want. I urge colleagues to vote for that in a Division, which we will most certainly now seek.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 275.

Division No. 175]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cohen, Harry


Adams, Mrs Irene
Connarty, Michael


Anger, Nick
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Corston, Jean


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cousins, Jim


Austin-Walker, John
Cummings, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Battle, John
Dalyell, Tam


Bayley, Hugh
Darling, Alistair


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davidson, Ian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Bermingham, Gerald
Denham, John


Berry, Roger
Dewar, Donald


Betts, Clive
Dixon, Don


Blunkett, David
Dobson, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Donohoe, Brian H


Bradley, Keith
Dowd, Jim


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Eastham, Ken


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Etherington, Bill


Byers, Stephen
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Caborn, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Callaghan, Jim
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell-Savours, D N
Foster, Don (Bath)


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Cann, Jamie
Fraser, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Fyfe, Maria


Chidgey, David
Galloway, George


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gapes, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Garrett, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gerrard, Neil


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clelland, David
Godsiff, Roger


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin


Coffey, Ann
Gordon, Mildred





Graham, Thomas
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Gunnell, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hain, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hall, Mike
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hanson, David
Mudie, George


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mullin, Chris


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Murphy, Paul


Heppell, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hodge, Margaret
O'Hara, Edward


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Olner, Bill


Home Robertson, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hood, Jimmy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoon, Geoffrey
Parry, Robert


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pearson, Ian


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Pendry, Tom


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Pickthall, Colin


Hoyle, Doug
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Illsley, Eric
Primarolo, Dawn


Ingram, Adam
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Radice, Giles


Jamieson, David
Randall, Stuart


Janner. Greville
Raynsford, Nick


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rendel, David


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rogers, Allan


Jowell, Tessa
Rooker, Jeff


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Keen, Alan
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)
Salmond, Alex


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Sedgemore, Brian


Khabra, Piara S
Sheerman, Barry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kirkwood, Archy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Terry
Short, Clare


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Skinner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spellar, John


McAllion, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McCartney, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum
Stevenson, George


McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


Mackinlay, Andrew
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McLeish, Henry
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


MacShane, Denis
Timms, Stephen


McWilliam, John
Tipping, Paddy


Madden, Max
Touhig, Don


Maddock, Diana
Trickett, Jon


Mahon, Alice
Turner, Dennis


Mandelson, Peter
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Walley, Joan


Meacher, Michael
Wareing, Robert N


Meale, Alan
Watson, Mike


Michael, Alun
Wicks, Malcolm


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wigley, Dafydd


Milburn, Alan
Wlliams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Miller, Andrew
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Winnick, David






Wise, Audrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wray, Jimmy



Wright Dr Tony
Ms Janet Anderson and


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Joe Benton.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Dunn, Bob


Alexander, Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Eggar, Fit Hon Tim


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Elletson, Harold


Amess, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Ashby, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Faber, David


Baldry, Tony
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bates, Michael
Fishburn, Dudley


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
French, Douglas


Body, Sir Richard
Fry, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Booth, Hartley
Gallie, Phil


Boswell, Tim
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, Sir John


Bright, Sir Graham
Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, Sir John


Butler, Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hendry, Charles


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clappison, James
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Devlin, Tim
Kellet-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger





Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Legg, Barry
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Leigh, Edward
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Sims, Sir Roger


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lidington, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spring, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marland, Paul
Sumberg, David


Marlow, Tony
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sykes, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Merchant Piers
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mills, Iain
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Moss, Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Tredinnick, David



Trend, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trotter Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Viggers, Peter


Norris, Steve
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walden, George


Ottaway, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Page, Richard
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Ward, John


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waterson, Nigel


Pawsey, James
Watts, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wells, Bowen


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Whitney, Ray


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whittingdale, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rathbone, Tim
Wilkinson, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Willetts, David


Richards, Rod
Wilshire, David


Riddick, Graham
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Robathan, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)



Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Derek Conway and


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Dr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 21

BINDING NATURE OF PROVISIONS

'The provisions of this Part have effect notwithstanding any agreement which seeks to set aside these provisions.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a simple clause, and it has been tabled with a sole purpose—to ensure that there is no risk of the provisions of the Bill being set aside or overridden by contractual agreements that would deny the intentions of Parliament.
I am advised by people who follow closely matters in the construction industry that debate is already beginning among some parties about the possibility of framing contracts that would set aside the provisions of the legislation. That would be unacceptable, and I hope that the Minister can assure us that there is no way in which that can take place. If he cannot do so, I hope that he will accept new clause 21, but he may be able to short-circuit the process.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill and established case law already give statutory rights to parties to construction contracts, which they cannot agree to give away in advance. I think that that is the point that he is getting at. New clause 21 is therefore unnecessary.
In any event, there is a problem with this new clause, because the position on rights after the event is rather different. I should like to give the hon. Member for Greenwich an example. Suppose that two contracting parties decide after a dispute arises that, in that case, it is not desirable to call in an adjudicator. Perhaps they recognise that the dispute concerns a point of law that is fundamental to the interpretation of the contract, and that it is sensible to take the dispute straight to court. There is no reason why they should not be allowed to make and rely on an agreement to that effect.
I think that what the hon. Member for Greenwich is worried about is people signing away their rights in advance, and I can give him my assurance on that point.

Mr. Chidgey: I am very pleased to hear the Minister's remarks, but I should like to have some further reassurances, if possible. I think that the Minister understands that it is often the case in construction contracts that the main contractor employs a host of smaller and often financially much weaker firms. Sadly, competition is currently fierce in the construction industry, and sub-contractors are extremely vulnerable to pressures to give away the rights that they would normally have under the contract. A very important point is that they can be protected under statute regardless of the financial pressures that might be placed on them to win projects to stay in business.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I can certainly assure the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on that, because clearly they would not be able to give away those rights.

Mr. Raynsford: May I press the Minister on one simple point? I entirely accept that there will be cases in

which it is appropriate to avoid the adjudication procedure, because the issues simply require handling by a different arbitral procedure. However, it would be totally unacceptable if it were possible for parties to be bound in advance not to take up their opportunity and their right to an adjudication procedure.
If the Minister can assure me that there will be no possibility of an agreement being reached in advance that will deny people the right to adjudication, but which will also allow them to decide in the event to set it aside if they wish to do so, I shall seek to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Jones: I thought that that is exactly what I had said, first, at the start of the debate on this new clause to the hon. Member for Greenwich, and then, secondly, to the hon. Member for Eastleigh—but, for a third time, that is the position.

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, and clause, by leave withdrawn.

New clause 22

EXCEPTION OF PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE FROM ADJUDICATION

'The adjudicator may not consider disputes relating solely to allegations of professional negligence.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Exemption from adjudication of professional negligence—
'The adjudicator will not consider alleged matters of professional negligence.'.

Mr. Raynsford: New clause 22 is concerned also with the remit of adjudication. Opinions have been expressed to us that it would be inappropriate for the adjudicator to become involved in matters relating to claims of professional negligence, partly because they would be outside the normal remit of adjudication, and partly because they would involve matters of legal complexity that would be difficult to resolve within the adjudication procedure.
The parties that have been in touch with us on this matter have proposed wording which I see in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). Our new clause 22 sought a rather tighter definition, simply to restrict disputes relating solely to allegations of professional negligence, recognising that professional negligence may arise in wider disputes that could well be appropriate for adjudication. I should be happy to hear the Minister's views on whether the adjudication procedure will normally exclude disputes that are related solely to matters of professional negligence.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I suspect that this matter arose because professionals were a little worried about judgments being made on their professional competence


by laymen. I think that much of that worry will have ceased in the move from permanently binding to temporarily binding adjudication.
There seems to be almost a contradiction between these two new clauses. One matter that I certainly worry about with new clause 23 is that it might open a very big loophole, because, to avoid adjudication, one could simply couple it with allegations of professional negligence. I can see that becoming a great industry for those who want to destroy this legislation, and that is why I reject the Liberal "loophole charter".
On the point made by the hon. Member for Greenwich, obviously it is right to take professional negligence into account in some cases, but if it were purely a matter of professional negligence, surely it should be pursued with the relevant profession.

Mr. Chidgey: My main concern is that we should not broaden the Bill so that it includes matters that could make it cease to work properly and in the manner in which we want it to work. Disputes over professional negligence are extremely complicated and lengthy, and are usually a matter of law rather than of building practice. I should like to have some reassurance—the Minister may already have met me halfway on this issue—that the intention is not for matters of professional negligence to be a part of this process. I have no doubt that that would be the wrong road to take.

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful for the Minister's response. I share his view that it would be inappropriate for complex matters relating solely to professional negligence to be considered under the adjudication procedure. For reasons that he will understand, in framing this new clause I took care to ensure that it did not open up the possibility of what he rightly identified as a "loophole", that could allow adjudication to be set aside. This issue concerns people in the industry. Hopefully, a problem will not arise, and the adjudication procedure will remain focused on the matters for which it is appropriate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, and clause, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 104

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 58, line 32, leave out from 'agreement' to end of line 33 and insert
'with a person for any of the following—
(a) the carrying out of construction operations;
(b) arranging for the carrying out of construction operations by others, whether under sub-contract to him or otherwise;
(c) providing his own labour, or the labour of others, for the carrying out of construction operations.
(1A) References in this Part to a construction contract include an agreement—
(a) to do architectural, design, or surveying work, or
(b) to provide advice on building, engineering, interior or exterior decoration or on the laying-out of landscape,
in relation to construction operations.

(1B) References in this Part to a construction contract do not include a contract of employment (within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996).
(1C) The Secretary of State may by order add to, amend or repeal any of the provisions of subsection (1), (1A) or (1B) as to the agreements which are construction contracts for the purposes of this Part or are to be taken or not to be taken as included in references to such contracts.
No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each of House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 75, 80, 81 and 101.

Mr. Jones: Our aims here are merely to improve the clarity of the Bill's wording and, at the same time, to include non-professional design and consultancy work. That objective reflects the debate and undertakings in Committee, as well as the representations that we have received. I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 75, in page 58, line 36, at end insert—

'An agreement relates to construction operations so far as it makes provision of any kind within subsection (1) or (lA).'.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Sir Sydney Chapman: I beg to move amendment No. 117, in page 58, line 40, at end insert—
'(3A) This Part shall not apply to any—
(a) joint venture or partnership agreement entered into for the purpose of carrying out construction operations for a third party;
(b) loan agreement, mortgage, charge or debenture entered into for the purposes of financing construction operations; or
(c) agreement which relates to construction operations and other matters where the consideration for the construction operations is included in—
(i) any amount payable in respect of the grant or transfer of an interest in land made or agreed to be made under the agreement, or
(ii) any amount payable in respect of the operation or management of the asset created by the carrying out of the construction operations;
which could otherwise be construed as a construction contract.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 82 and 83.

Sir Sydney Chapman: This amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who unfortunately has an inescapable parliamentary duty elsewhere in the Palace.
I need not rehearse the arguments for this amendment to my hon. Friend the Minister. We have been struggling to find the right definition of construction contracts, and we have tried to move the boundary to here on one occasion and to extend it to there on another occasion. Despite the silent eloquence of my hon. Friend. I think that there are still many items that should not be in the Bill, and it would be agreeable that they should not be in it.
Amendment No. 117 seeks to ensure that loan agreements, development agreements, and lease and concession agreements under the private finance initiative, for example, should be excluded from the definition of construction contracts.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: First, perhaps I should say that Government amendment No. 82 is to block the so-called "penthouse" loophole. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome that provision, although I do not think that the loophole was likely to arise.
As for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) on amendment No. 117, of course our intention is not to catch matters that are not related to construction. We are considering ways in which we can help with the concerns expressed by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill).
I must bear in mind, however—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet will understand—the need not to create loopholes in construction work that can be wriggled through. On that basis, perhaps he will accept the assurance that I should like to meet the substance of his concerns, but that I must have a very careful look to ensure that we are not creating some unintended consequence.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Committee, although I had been active in promoting the idea of a construction contracts Bill for many months before it appeared. Since it has been produced, the one matter of concern to those involved in the many multifarious activities that come under the heading of contracts has been that the Bill should be related specifically to what those in the construction industry regard as construction contracts.
Although I strongly support the two Government amendments grouped with amendment No. 117, and the clarification that the Minister has been able to offer, can he say whether the Government amendments meet the requirements of the Constructors Liaison Group, as that would be a great confidence booster for the industry.

Sir Sydney Chapman: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 105

MEANING OF "CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS"

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 59, line 4, leave out 'structures or any works' and insert 'or structures'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 77 to 79.
No. 13, in page 59, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 36.
No. 73, in page 59, leave out lines 37 to 44 and insert—
`( ) manufacture or supply of:—
(i) building or engineering components or equipment,
(ii) materials, plant or machinery, or

(iii) components for systems of heating, lighting, air-conditioning, ventilation, power supply, drainage. sanitation, water supply or fire protection, or for security or communications systems,
under contracts of sale, hire or lease.'.

Mr. Jones: The amendments are intended to tidy up the maintenance amendment that was carried in Committee, including the undertakings given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). His amendments, which relate to the process engineering industry, go too far, and I would certainly not want them to be passed by the House.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am grateful to the Minister for tabling the Government amendments. I thank him for his decision to include maintenance in the definition of the industry, as we had a long debate on that subject. I also thank him for tabling amendments Nos. 78 and 79, which pick up minor points. I also thank him for Government amendment No. 74 on construction design, which again picked up points raised in debate.
I am sorry that the Minister does not feel that he can include the process industries, as we had a long debate on the subject in Committee—we might even have voted on it had it not been for a technical hitch involving the amendment paper. I like to think that, had we had a vote, we might have been able to correct the matter.
I can see no good reason why the process industries should be excluded. We rehearsed all the arguments, and the letters that I have received from Mr. Dunlop of the Process Industries Latham Group do not seem to have given any reasons. Mr. Dunlop says that, if things are left as they are, there could be confusion in the industry, so we should include it.
There is no more reason to exclude the process industries than to exempt drivers who have never had an accident from obeying the highway code. This is a good Bill, and we should include all the industries that are relevant to construction, not leave out the process industries because they have largely been able to manage their affairs reasonably well in the past. There can be problems, and the industries would benefit from the legislation.
I was disappointed that Mr. Dunlop said that he thought the legislation could harm the industries' operations. When I asked him to spell out in what way it might be harmful, he was unable to come up with any illustrations. We should have been able to include the process industries, and I am sorry that we are not able to go further.
Amendment No. 73 deals with manufacture off site. As we discussed in Committee, it is a growing practice, which leads to greater efficiency within the industry. Bespoke items can be produced off site, where they can be produced as accurately as possible, under factory conditions, and lead to greater productivity on site.
There is a danger in the Government's measure, although it is a great improvement on what we had before, and largely satisfies most requirements. There is a danger that it could result in the splitting of contracts so that the installation aspect is left out. My amendment is worded as it is so that the easily understood contracts covering the sale, hire and lease of goods would apply to those


components to which the Bill does not apply. Where we want the Bill's provisions to help the industry, it would be perfectly possible for it to do so under the terms set out in the amendment.
I am grateful to the Constructors Liaison Group for its help in drawing up the amendment, but I am sorry that the Minister does not feel able to accept it. I hope that he will take on board the arguments involving the clause. I hope that any anxieties that we still feel will be allayed when we see the scheme of contracts.
I thank the Minister for the help that he has given with the other amendments, and I hope that he will continue to give further consideration to amendments Nos. 13 and 73, which address valid points.

Mr. Raynsford: We welcome Government amendments Nos. 76 and 77, which build on the changes made in Committee, particularly including reference to maintenance works within the overall definition. We still remain a little doubtful about whether it was necessary to include the long illustrative list of works in the second part of amendment No. 77. It would have been neater simply to set out the principles in the Bill, without the illustrative examples. However, the Government have moved positively in response to our amendment, in the same way as they moved over the penthouse loophole to which the Minister referred in our earlier debate. We welcome those moves, and the inclusion of such provisions in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 77, in page 59, line 5, at end insert—

`( ) construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, extension, demolition or dismantling of any works forming, or to form, part of the land, including (without prejudice to the foregoing) walls, roadworks, power-lines, telecommunication apparatus, aircraft runways, docks and harbours, railways, inland waterways, pipe-lines, reservoirs, water-mains, wells, sewers, industrial plant and installations for purposes of land drainage, coast protection or defence;'.

No. 78, in page 59, line 11, after `(c)' insert 'external or'.

No. 79, in page 59, line 17, at end insert maintenance or dismantling'.

No. 80, in page 59, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 60.

No. 81, in page 60, line 7, leave out (2) or (3)' and insert 'or (2)'.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Clause 106

PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE TO CONTRACT WITH RESIDENTIAL OCCUPIER

Amendments made: No. 82, in page 60, line 11, leave out from 'apply' to "'dwelling"' in line 15 and insert

'—
(a) to a construction contract with a residential occupier (see below), or
(b) to any other description of construction contract excluded from the operation of this Part by order of the Secretary of State.

(2) A construction contract with a residential occupier means a construction contract which principally relates to operations on a dwelling which one of the parties to the contract occupies, or intends to occupy, as his residence.

In this subsection'.

No. 83, in page 60, line 22, leave out 'such order' and insert 'order under this section'.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Clause 108

RIGHT TO REFER DISPUTES TO ADJUDICATION

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 133, in page 61, line 5, after first 'under', insert 'or in connection with'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 84, in page 61, line 8, at end insert—
'( ) enable a party to give notice at any time of his intention to refer a dispute to adjudication;'.
Amendment (a) to amendment No. 84, leave out 'at any time' and insert
'within the time period prescribed in the contract'.
Amendment (b) to the amendment, after 'time', insert
'within the period prescribed in the contract.'
Government amendment No. 85.
Government amendment No. 86, in page 61, line 13, at end insert—
'( ) allow the adjudicator to extend the period of 28 days by up to 14 days, with the consent of the party by whom the dispute was referred;'.
Amendment (a) to amendment No. 86, leave out '14' and insert '28'.
Amendment (b) to the amendment, leave out from `days' to the end.

Mr. Raynsford: Amendment No. 133 relates to a small point, but one that may have considerable significance. It simply seeks to insert the words "or in connection with" after the reference to construction contracts in clause 108.
The technical issue that has prompted the amendment was raised by a barrister with considerable experience in construction matters, who regularly writes for one of the best-read magazines in the industry. He has written to me—he also wrote to the Minister—to express concern that the Bill's wording might leave a loophole. He said in his letter:
The reason is that the words 'arising under a contract' have been held by the Court of Appeal"—
he quotes the case of Fillite Runcorn Ltd. v. Aqua-Lift in 1992—might be construed
to exclude jurisdiction for such matters as negligent misstatement and misrepresentation.
'Arising under a contract' is not an all encompassing phrase.
If there is a risk that the wording of the legislation is defective and it is necessary to include the words "or in connection with" in order to remedy that defect—as the barrister recommends—that is a modest change that will ensure that the purposes of Parliament are not frustrated. I hope that the Minister can give a response to the matter, as he has also received the letter to which I referred.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I distinctly remember the hon. Member for Greenwich beginning his speeches on this


part of the Bill in Committee by saying that he wanted to keep lawyers out of the matter, but he is now citing barristers in support of his argument.
Amendment No. 133 would widen the scope of adjudication from disputes under the contract to disputes under or in connection with the contract, which would be a huge step. The adjudicator is appointed under the contract and must be guided by its terms. He cannot turn his attention to matters that are not covered by the contract or that are the subject of other contracts, even between the same parties. The amendment would give the adjudicator an horizon different from the one that has been subject to debate in the past few months, and we cannot even begin to consider such a change at this stage.
Even if we could be persuaded that such a dramatic adjustment were necessary, it would be a major task to give him the new powers to tackle his new role. He would need statutory powers, and he might ultimately become almost an arbitrator. The industry is keen to avoid that, so I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich will think again.
The hon. Gentleman should be happy with the Government amendments in the group, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister said that he thought that we wished to keep lawyers out of the matter. We do wish to keep lawyers out of the matter—but once the legislation has been decided. At that stage, we want the adjudication procedure to be so smooth, swift and clearly advantageous that people will prefer it to the more time-consuming and expensive procedures of litigation. We certainly do not want to allow any opportunities for lawyers to get in on the act after the Bill has been enacted, but in the meantime we want to take the best advice.
I hear what the Minister says about the possibility of widening disputes to an extent that would undermine adjudication. I am concerned, however, that loopholes may emerge if the concerns that have been expressed prove to be better founded than the Minister believes. If it transpires that the procedures simply cannot cope with a range of issues because of the Bill's technical definition, we shall have to reconsider the matter. Many issues arising from the Latham report have not been covered by the Bill and may need to be reconsidered by a future Government.
Amendment (b) to Government amendment No. 84 deals with the time period for matters referred to adjudication. It has been brought to our attention that the wording of Government amendment No.84, which enables a party to give notice at any time of his intention to refer a dispute to adjudication, could be very open-ended—a fear that the Minister expressed in opposing amendment No. 133.
For that reason, amendment (b) seeks to add the rider
within the period prescribed in the contract
to avoid any such open-ended commitment. Perhaps the Minister will see merit in that restriction, to ensure that we avoid loopholes in the legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 84, in page 61, line 8, at end insert—

'( ) enable a party to give notice at any time of his intention to refer a dispute to adjudication;'.

No. 85, in line 10, at end insert 'of such notice'.

No. 86, in line 13, at end insert—

'( ) allow the adjudicator to extend the period of 28 days by up to 14 days, with the consent of the party by whom the dispute was referred;'.

No. 87, in line 16, at end insert—

'(2A) The contract shall provide that the decision of the adjudicator is binding until the dispute is finally determined by legal proceedings, by arbitration (if the contract provides for arbitration or the parties otherwise agree to arbitration) or by agreement.

The parties may agree to accept the decision of the adjudicator as finally determining the dispute.'.

No. 88, in line 16, at end insert—

'(2B) The contract shall also provide that the adjudicator is not liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as adjudicator unless the act or omission is in bad faith, and that any employee or agent of the adjudicator is similarly protected from liability.'.

No. 89, in line 18, after '(2)' insert 'and (2A)'.

No. 90, in line 18, after '(2)' insert 'and (2B)'.

No. 91, in line 19, at end insert—

'( ) For England and Wales, the Scheme may apply the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 with such adaptations and modifications as appear to the Minister making the scheme to be appropriate.

For Scotland, the Scheme may include provision conferring powers on courts in relation to adjudication and provision relating to the enforcement of the adjudicator's decision.'.—[Mr. Brandreth]

Clause 109

ENTITLEMENT TO STAGE PAYMENTS

Amendments made: No. 92, in page 61, line 23, leave out from 'unless' to end of line 24.

No. 93, in line 26, leave out '60' and insert '45'.

No. 94, in line 28, leave out '60' and insert '45'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 110

DATES FOR PAYMENT

Amendments made: No. 95, in page 61, line 41, at end insert—

'(1A) Every construction contract shall provide for the giving of notice by a party not later than five days after the date on which a payment becomes due from him under the contract, or would have become due if—
(a) the other party had carried out his obligations under the contract, and
(b) no set-off or abatement was permitted by reference to any sum claimed to be due under one or more other contracts,
specifying the amount (if any) of the payment made or proposed to be made, and the basis on which that amount was calculated.'.

No. 96, in page 62, line 1, after 'provision' insert

'as is mentioned in subsection (1) or (1A)' —[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 111

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO WITHHOLD PAYMENT

Amendments made: No. 97, in page 62, line 3, leave out subsection (1).

No. 98, in line 9, leave out from `due' to `under' in line 10.

No. 99, in line 11, at end insert—

'The notice mentioned in section 110(1A) may suffice as a notice of intention to withhold payment if it complies with the requirements of this section.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 113

PROHIBITION OF CONDITIONAL PAYMENT PROVISIONS

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 63, line 3, leave out
'which has the effect of'.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the prohibition on the pay-when-paid system operates without disrupting the principal payment mechanisms used in the construction industry, of which the most important is certification.
The concern that Sir Michael Latham was asked to address was where the payment chain was becoming so extended that small construction companies at the bottom of the chain were having to wait months for their money. They were doing so because of the pay-when-paid system, whereby payments made by a main contractor would await payment to it by its client, and the subcontractors would, in turn, not pay the next contractor in the chain until they had received payment—and so on down the contractual hierarchy. At each stage, payment had to arrive with the payer before he considered payment to the payee—possibly up to 30 days later.
That was the abuse that Sir Michael Latham addressed. Effectively, it was about each contractor in the chain holding on to cash for as long as possible to receive the benefit of interest payments or to put the money to use elsewhere before making payments for work done. The intention of clause 113 is to prevent contractors from pursuing this practice. That is what the industry agreed to under the Latham process—specifically, clients, main contractors and subcontractors—and that is what the Government are now seeking to deliver.
The amendment accepted by the Committee significantly changes the effect of the clause. It seeks to prevent any linkage between a subcontract and a main contract, which could have an impact on payment. That represents a considerable moving of the goalposts and significantly undermines the agreed industry position.
The process of construction of a major project depends on a series of interlocking contracts. Ascertaining what payment becomes due is not as simple as the system to which we are all accustomed whereby payment is exchanged for goods received. Construction is a process. Sums due may be established by a number of mechanisms. For example, an architect or engineer may establish what work has been properly executed by the main contractor and his subcontractors and issue a certificate on the main contract, which triggers payment. That certification process not only serves to show what is due to the main contractor but will be the basis of valuation of the work done, and therefore the sums due to the subcontractors as well. This is the system that is regularly used in standard construction contracts.
There are other ways of establishing the need for payment. Sir Michael Latham recommended the milestone system, whereby payment is triggered when a professional adviser to a client reports that the work done by a contractor and his subcontractors passes an agreed milestone or benchmark.
I draw out two points from those examples: first, that the certification or assessment procedure is central to the workings of many construction contracts and, secondly, that the work assessed under the main contract comprises not only that done by the main contractor and his work force, but that done by the subcontractors. The assessment process on the main contract values the package as a whole.
The wording of clause 113 would disable the certification system. That would have very serious implications for construction contracts. It would invalidate one of the regularly used forms of subcontract—the JCT nominated form—that subcontractors have strongly advocated. I also want to make it completely clear that it is outside the industry consensus. It is not in keeping with what Latham recommended, and I am not even aware that it has ever been discussed by the industry. That is why I have proposed amendment No. 100 to restore clause 113 to its original purpose.

Mr. Raynsford: This subject was debated at length in Committee. Some progress has been made and the Government are proposing a move that, in a number of respects, is retrograde.
The clause as originally drafted dealt with contracts or terms that purported to make payment dependent on third-party action. That wording was clearly unsatisfactory and was amended in Committee. The clause now refers to provisions that have the "effect of making payment" dependent on a third party.
That clearly is the purpose of the move to outlaw pay-when-paid clauses, which have been a huge problem to subcontractors and which have led to unacceptable practices. The move to get rid of pay-when-paid clauses was very much part of the Latham committee's recommendations.
I hear what the Minister says about certification. He will know that, in Committee, with that point precisely in mind, we moved an amendment to ensure that nothing would cut across the normal procedures for certification. The Minister assured us that that was not necessary, so the amendment was not incorporated in the Bill. Now he says that the provision in the Bill will be hugely damaging and will cut across certification procedures.
I am not convinced, but if the Minister is right he has a simple remedy to hand: to advise his colleagues in another place to accept the amendment that we tabled in Committee. That would make it clear that the outlawing of pay-when-paid provisions should not cut across certification procedures. The Minister, meanwhile, proposes severely to damage the effectiveness of the legislation when it comes to outlawing pay-when-paid provisions. That will be regarded with horror by most of the subcontractors, who will see the door being left open, once again, to unscrupulous contractors so to manipulate arrangements as to deny payments—on the tenuous basis of pay-when-paid clauses.
This is a very serious clause. I hope that the Minister will think again. If he does not, I trust that hon. Members will vote against the Government amendment.

8 pm

Mr. Thurnham: I am disappointed with the Government amendment. I felt that the Committee was right to change the original shape of the clause, which included the words "purporting to make payment". That was changed to
which has the effect of making payment".
Now, the Government want to remove the words
which has the effect of".
There seems to be a great deal of heat over five words, but they go to the heart of the Bill. We are discussing where the balance of risk should lie; whether with the small subcontractors, who have to pay for wages and materials irrespective of whether they receive payment from contractors above them in the chain, or whether with the larger contractors.
I am sorry that the Government seem to have moved in favour of the larger contractors. The smaller ones are the weaker partners to the contract, so if the balance is to be tipped one way or the other, it should be towards the smaller subcontractors. The Minister has had the right balance in mind throughout the Bill's proceedings; that is what has made it such an excellent Bill. I am sorry that he has been unable to maintain the balance at this point.
The constructors' liaison group has put out a parliamentary briefing headed "Just Five Words", because it feels so strongly about the issue. The Minister says that the Committee amendment undermines the agreed industry position, but I find that difficult to follow. Sir Michael Latham's report, "Constructing the Team", states in recommendation 8.10:
Clauses with the effect of introducing pay-when-paid conditions should be specifically declared unfair and invalid".
That is exactly the point. It is why I feel so strongly that the words "the effect of should be retained.
Since the publication of "Constructing the Team", the Government have continually stressed the necessity of prohibiting the pernicious pay-when-paid tactics adopted by many main contractors. The whole process of reforming payment procedures depends on a satisfactory resolution of such tactics.
Ministers have consistently supported the line that pay-when-paid tactics must be ended. That was restated by the Minister in the Committee debates. It is therefore strange to find that the Government amendment would weaken the pay-when-paid prohibition. In the DTI publication, "Your Business Matters", the Government's policy on the banning of pay-when-paid clauses in construction contracts is once again restated, and it is clearly a cornerstone of Government policy. Such clauses transfer the risk of funding requirements for construction operations to the lowest level of construction contracts—the subcontractors. They are exposed to the greatest financial risk, through late or non-payment or insolvency. Incidentally, the insolvency waiver has already been agreed. They also make the greatest contribution to the funding capital required by a project.
The effect is that smaller companies prop up the larger companies higher up the contractual chain. Clients are required to pay the costs of such bottom-up funding

through increased tender prices. It is by amending these processes that the savings sought in "Constructing the Team" will be achieved.
The amendment seeks to delete the five words
which have the effect of',
but that leaves the redrafted clause restrictive and limited to payment provisions only. It also makes it a simple matter for a determined main contractor to bypass the provisions. The Government amendment weakens the Bill and allows back-door tactics to defeat the objective of the clause; it also allows pay-when-paid provisions to be introduced through procedural links to head contracts.
The Government amendment amounts to the pay-when-paid system under another guise. It would allow the creation of a payment dependence at one level on an event or procedure occurring at another level in the contractual chain. As such, it interferes with privity of contract and creates an unnecessary linkage, to the disadvantage of those lower in the contractual chain.
Each construction contract needs to have a stand-alone payment procedure which is in no way linked with or dependent on activities occurring, or not occurring, in contracts above them. Any form of linkage to events in other contracts is a back-door pay-when-paid system. What has been allowed in the case of insolvency goes far enough, I believe, in terms of transferring risk.
What are the Government's views on how the clause as drafted affects certification? The purpose of a certificate at main contract level is to indicate the amount due under that contract. When payment is due is a matter for the adequate mechanism, and these issues should not become linked or confused. Clause 113 does not inhibit or contradict the process of third-party certification in main or nominated contracts.
Payment certificates issued under the industry standard contract are not linked to domestic subcontract payment conditions regarding the amount or timing of payments, and payment procedures are unlinked between contracts. The certification process in relation to payments is concerned with establishing the amount that is due. It operates on main contracts and only a small number of subcontracts. Establishing when payments are due has to be satisfied through the adequate mechanism. Nothing in the current draft of clause 113 affects the ability of the certifying process to work under existing contracts.
It is not acceptable to dilute such a key provision. Certification relates to one commercial transaction, and the procedure should not apply down the contractual chain. At subcontract level, a totally different commercial transaction exists. The standard form of contract used by the industry confirms that normal practice is not to have any such linkages between contracts; and payment procedures at different contracting levels operate on totally separate payment cycles.
The existing payment procedures at domestic subcontract level preserve the privity of contract arrangements, and clause 113 reinforces that. The Government amendment would interfere with the process and would offer the potential to interfere with established practice. The Government should therefore withdraw the amendment. If they persist with it and it is agreed to, I hope that the measure will be given a thorough examination in the other place.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: There is no question but that we want pay-when-paid clauses banned, and we have already


tilted the balance in favour of smaller companies—that is precisely where the shoe pinches, as my hon. Friend says. It was no part of Sir Michael Latham's proposals, or of the Government's, to outlaw certification. That would be absurd.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Jones: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has been particularly concerned about how the scheme payment procedures might work out in practice. They are what would be required to operate if a contractual payment mechanism was inadequate. Details are a matter for consultation once the Bill has received Royal Assent, but my hon. Friend has my complete assurance that we will not allow scheme procedures to be vulnerable to the sort of abuse that he has described.

Mr. Nicholls: If the certification procedure were used as a way of avoiding what the Government intend, would the adjudicator be able to disapply the clause?

Mr. Jones: The adjudicator would have to judge whether there was any relevant link between the two. If the certification procedure allowed money not to be paid because work had not been done, and the main contractor then blamed the subcontractor, the latter would be able to go to the adjudicator if he did not think that that was fair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 246.

Division No. 176]
[8.09 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Browning, Mrs Angela


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Budgen, Nicholas


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butler, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Carrington, Matthew


Baldry, Tony
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cash, William


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bates, Michael
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Batiste, Spencer
Churchill, Mr


Bellingham, Henry
Clappison, James


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coe, Sebastian


Body, Sir Richard
Colvin, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Congdon, David


Booth, Hartley
Conway, Derek


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bowis, John
Couchman, James


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Cran, James


Brandreth, Gyles
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Brazier, Julian
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bright, Sir Graham
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Day, Stephen





Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Devlin, Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Laft, Mrs Jacqui


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dover, Den
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Duncan, Alan
Legg, Barry


Duncan Smith, Iain
Leigh, Edward


Dunn, Bob
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Dykes, Hugh
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Lidington, David


Elletson, Harold
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Luff, Peter


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evennett, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
MacKay, Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Madel, Sir David


Fishburn, Dudley
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forth, Eric
Malone, Gerald


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mans, Keith


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gallie, Phil
Mates, Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Garnier, Edward
Merchant, Piers


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Gillan, Cheryl
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moate, Sir Roger


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Gorst, Sir John
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Norris, Steve


Hannam, Sir John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hargreaves, Andrew
Ottaway, Richard


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Page, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Paice, James


Hawksley, Warren
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hayes, Jerry
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heald, Oliver
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hendry, Charles
Pickles, Eric


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Powell, William (Corby)


Horam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Richards, Rod


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jack, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Fit Hon Tom
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Sir Michael






Sims, Sir Roger
Tredinnick, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Trend, Michael


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Trotter, Neville


Speed, Sir Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spencer, Sir Derek
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Viggers, Peter


Spink, Dr Robert
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spring, Richard
Walden, George


Sproat, Iain
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Waller, Gary


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Ward, John


Steen, Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stephen, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stewart, Allan
Wells, Bowen


Streeter, Gary
Whitney, Ray


Sumberg, David
Whittingdale, John


Sweeney, Walter
Widdecombe, Ann


Sykes, John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Willetts, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Thomason, Roy
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thornton, Sir Malcolm



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Mr. Roger Knapman and


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clelland, David


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ainger, Nick
Coffey, Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cohen, Harry


Allen, Graham
Connarty, Michael


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Corston, Jean


Ashton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Austin-Walker, John
Cummings, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Battle, John
Dalyell, Tam


Bayley, Hugh
Darling, Alistair


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davidson, Ian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Bell, Stuart
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Bennett, Andrew F
Denham, John


Benton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dixon, Don


Berry, Roger
Dobson, Frank


Betts, Clive
Donohoe, Brian H


Blunkett, David
Dowd, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bradley, Keith
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Etherington, Bill


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fatchett, Derek


Byers, Stephen
Faulds, Andrew


Caborn, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Callaghan, Jim
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fraser, John


Canavan, Dennis
Fyfe, Maria


Cann, Jamie
Galloway, George


Chidgey, David
Gapes, Mike


Chisholm, Malcolm
Garrett, John


Church, Judith
Gerrard, Neil


Clapham, Michael
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Golding, Mrs Llin





Gordon, Mildred
Miller, Andrew


Graham, Thomas
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grocott, Bruce
Morgan, Rhodri


Gunnell, John
Morley, Elliot


Hall, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hanson, David
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mowlam, Marjorie


Heppell, John
Mudie, George


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mullin, Chris


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Paul


Hodge, Margaret
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hoey, Kate
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Home Robertson, John
O'Hara, Edward


Hood, Jimmy
Olner, Bill


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Martin


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Parry, Robert


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Pearson, Ian


Hoyle, Doug
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Simon (Southward)
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Illsley, Eric
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ingram, Adam
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Purchase, Ken


Jamieson, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Janner, Greville
Randall, Stuart


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rendel, David


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jowell, Tessa
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rogers, Allan


Keen, Alan
Rooker, Jeff


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Rowlands, Ted


Khabra, Piara S
Sedgemore, Brian


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kirkwood, Archy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Terry
Short, Clare


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Skinner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Loyden, Eddie
Soley, Clive


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spearing, Nigel


McAllion, John
Spellar, John


McAvoy, Thomas
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McCartney, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum
Stevenson, George


McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


Mackinlay, Andrew
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McLeish, Henry
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


MacShane, Denis
Thurnham, Peter


McWilliam, John
Timms, Stephen


Madden, Max
Tipping, Paddy


Maddock, Diana
Touhig, Don


Mahon, Alice
Trickett, Jon


Mandelson, Peter
Turner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Walley, Joan


Meacher, Michael
Wareing, Robert N


Meale, Alan
Watson, Mike


Michael, Alun
Wicks, Malcolm


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wigley, Dafydd


Milburn, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)






Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Winnick, David



Wise, Audrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Peter Hain and


Wright, Dr Tony
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 120

REGISTRATION

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 67, line 11, leave out 'such' and insert
'the bodies representative of architects which are incorporated by royal charter and such other'.
The Bill, as it stands, requires the board to consult professional and educational bodies as it thinks appropriate. We believe that it would be unreasonable for the board to fail to consult the Royal Institute of British Architects—the professional organisation to which 70 per cent. of architects belong.
The amendment requires the board to consult the Royal Institute of British Architects and its equivalents in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. The obligation to consult the chartered bodies implies a duty to have due regard to their views. As hon. Members will be aware, the Royal Institute of British Architects is the main body responsible for the education of architects and, therefore, it is entirely appropriate that its views should be taken into account.

Mr. Keith Vaz: As with all the amendments in relation to architects in this part of the Bill, the Labour party is happy to accept the amendment. We believe that other bodies should be consulted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 121

DISCIPLINE

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 69, line 1, after `(b)' insert 'serious'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 64 to 71.

Mr. Clappison: The amendment deals with disciplinary procedures for architects. The Bill creates the new offence of professional incompetence and we believe that it is appropriate to add the word "serious" because we wish to protect the profession from trivial and vexatious allegations. We know that the profession is concerned about this. We believe that the amendment will afford that protection and, at the same time, not undermine the benefit of increased consumer protection. We believe that the word "serious" fits the bill.

Mr. Vaz: I am delighted that the Government have accepted the spirit, if not the letter, of the amendments that were put forward in Committee. Although the Minister has not gone all the way and accepted both the words that we wished to insert, he has gone half way, and we are happy to accept the amendment.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I declare a possible interest: I am a registered and chartered architect, but I have not

practised for years and, therefore, I have no financial interest. I have no objection to Government amendment No. 63 or to the allied amendments. However, as I said in Committee, if an allegation is made against a member of the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom or the Royal Institute of British Architects, a prima facie case has to be established before the case is taken forward—in other words, the allegation is investigated. At that stage, the committee would decide that there was no case to answer, unless there was a serious case of professional incompetence. The word "serious" will be added to the Bill, but there will be arguments about what it means. I believe that there is no need for the amendment, but I will go along with it as we seek consensus on this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 69, line 12, after 'or' insert 'serious'.

No. 65, in page 69, line 15, after 'or' insert 'serious'.

No. 66, in page 69, line 28, at end insert 'serious'.

No. 67, in page 69, line 36, at end insert 'serious'.

No. 68, in page 70, line 7, after 'of insert 'serious'.

No. 69, in page 70, line 15, at end insert `serious'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 122

CODE OF PRACTICE

Amendment made: No. 70, in page 71. line 38, after `or' insert 'serious'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 123

OFFENCE OF PRACTISING WHILE NOT REGISTERED

Mr. Vaz: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 72, line 8, at end insert—
'( 1B) Subject to the provisions of this Act a person who (whether expressly or by implication) takes or uses any name, title, addition or description falsely implying that he is a registered architect in the course of business is guilty of an offence.'. As hon. Members know, part III of the Bill deals with architects and with registration. Judging by the way in which the debate went during the Committee stage and by the speed at which we are going through the Report stage, this would be a model for the registration and the formalisation of other professions should they ever be the subject of a debate in the House.
I have omitted to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman). It is rare to have an architect in the House. He kept the Committee amused and entertained with his knowledge of architecture, even though he has not practised for some time.
The amendment seeks to repair a serious omission in the Architects Registration Act 1938. The defect has had, and continues to have, adverse consumer implications. Clause 1 of the 1938 Act specifically makes it an offence to practise or to carry on the business of an architect under any name, style or title containing the word "architect" unless the person concerned is a registered architect. However, the clause as currently drafted does not cover the frequent practice of people implying that they are an architect, while being careful not to use that title. The courts have held that unless the word "architect" is


specifically used, the imposter—the person who claims to be an architect but who is not—can walk free, which violates the spirit and the letter of the 1938 Act.
The consumer of architectural services is at risk and the public is being misled. There is no monopoly of architectural services in Britain and all design work is open to competition—and rightly so—but the title "architect" is protected. However, unless the amendment or something similar to it is tabled, the limited consumer protection offered by the 1938 Act will have no effect. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. If he cannot accept it, will he at least give hon. Members an assurance that when the matter goes to the other place his colleagues will look at it again and ensure that the spirit of what we want is incorporated?

Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) for his kind and generous remarks. I have a great deal of sympathy with amendment No. 136. As the hon. Gentleman said, architects do not have a design monopoly: anyone can call himself a building designer or an architectural designer. That is perfectly legal. In short, anyone can design a building—obviously prudent people will go to a registered or a chartered architect for building design work.
There has been considerable abuse of the system. For example, people can advertise openly as architects but spell the word "arkitects" and nothing can be done about it. I hope that my hon. Friend is minded to accept the amendment. If he is not, I must tell him that I shall not vote on the amendment because, in my humble opinion, it could be viewed as pleading on my own behalf as the measure might benefit me in the future—although I may never go back to the drawing board, as they say. In those circumstances, I think it appropriate not to vote on the matter.

Mr. Clappison: This has been an interesting but brief debate. I join the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman). I share the sentiment that he expressed that it will be a long time before he is required to go back to the drawing board—if that ever happens.
I join my hon. Friend also in expressing some sympathy with the intention of the amendment. I understand the hon. Gentleman's analysis and the concern that he expressed. He knows—I think it is common ground—that an important aim of the legislation is to protect the public and I understand his desire to increase protection against possible misrepresentation. There will always be unqualified persons who would like to pass themselves off as architects by using similar titles or designations.
The amendment, as drafted, partly duplicates what is already on the face of the existing Architects Registration Act 1938. It is an offence for a person to describe himself as an architect in the course of business if his name does not appear on the register of architects. However, the amendment's intention of expanding the scope of the protection of title to include anyone who implies falsely that he is a registered architect is clear.
At first, that might appear to be a sensible suggestion. However, there are serious drawbacks that we must consider and that lead us to conclude that it would not be right to accept the amendment. It would introduce a grey area concerning what title is being protected and whether it is necessary to prove an intention to mislead. As hon. Members will know, a number of perfectly legitimate designations are currently used by other construction professionals—for example, architectural technicians and technologists. I am sure that Labour Members would not expect them to be covered by the amendment.
Other designations are less clear-cut. What about "architectural consultants", "architectural designers" and those who provide "architectural services"? Some might try to give the false impression that they are registered architects. However—I remind hon. Members that we are talking about designations as the function of an architect is not protected—most will continue to provide perfectly legitimate services in the general field of architecture and no one will be misled as to their status. It is not in the public interest to weaken the distinction between those sorts of designations and the title "architect"; nor would it be fair to prevent persons from using designations that describe accurately the work that they carry out legitimately.
For those reasons, expansion of protection of title was never part of the package of reforms that the Government, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Architects Registration Council agreed upon—nor was it the subject of the consultation that the Government conducted subsequently. It would be unreasonable to introduce any change in the scope of protection of title without fully consulting all those who might be affected. I do not believe that such an exercise would ultimately serve the interests of either registered architects or the general public.
It is fundamentally important that the public should be given as precise and clear a definition as possible as to who is registered and who is not. The architects registration Acts achieve that by requiring that any person using the title "architect" in the course of his or her business must be registered. That is a simple and easy-to-understand definition and does not allow any room for confusion or misinterpretation. The Government wish to retain it.
I hope that I have persuaded the hon. Gentleman that any expansion of protection of title is not a straightforward matter and that it could create as many problems as it solves. I understand his concerns and those of my hon. Friend, but I do not believe that it is appropriate for the amendment to become part of the Bill. Therefore, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Mr. Vaz: I have listened carefully to the Minister's comments—neither he nor I were architects in our previous lives. However, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) was, and the profession is concerned that the legislation does not cover the serious points that he raised. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to consult the Royal Institute of British Architects before the Bill goes to the other place to see whether an acceptable form of words may be inserted. On that basis, I shall not press the amendment to a vote.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 2

ARCHITECTS

Amendment made: No. 71, in page 95, line 42, after 'or' insert `serious'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

New clause 18

REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT: WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY.

'.—(1) In the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, after section 10 insert—

"Financial assistance for regeneration and development

10A.—(1) The Secretary of State may appoint the Agency to act as his agent in connection with such of his functions mentioned in subsection (2) below as he may specify.

(2) The functions are—
 (a) functions under sections 126 to 128 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (financial assistance for regeneration and development), so far as they relate to—
(i) financial assistance which the Agency has power to give apart from this section; or
(ii) financial assistance given under that Act in pursuance of an agreement entered into by the Secretary of State for Wales before the coming into force of this section, or
(b) functions of the Secretary of State in relation to financial assistance given by the Secretary of State for Wales under sections 27 to 29 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986.

(3) An appointment under this section shall be on such terms as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may specify; and the Agency shall act under the appointment in accordance with those terms.

(4) The Agency's powers in relation to functions under an appointment under this section include the powers it has in relation to functions under subsection (3) of section I by virtue of subsections (6) and (7) of that section."

(2) In section 2(8) of that Act, after "declared that" insert ", except as provided by section 10A below,".'.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 118.

Mr. Jones: New clause 18 allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to appoint the Welsh Development Agency to act as his agent in connection, first, with his functions relating to regeneration and development under clauses 126 to 128 of the present Bill where those functions fall within the agency's powers; and, secondly, in connection with the administration of financial assistance for urban investment grant agreements entered into under sections 27 to 29 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986. The effect of amendment No. 118 is that the new clause will come into force the usual two months after Royal Assent.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 133

RELOCATION GRANTS: AMOUNT

Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 77, line 11, after 'dwelling', insert
'and making any improvement, having regard to the size of the applicant's household, including any person living with him or intending to live with him and any person on whom he is dependent or who is dependent on him'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment No. 139, in page 77, line 11, after 'dwelling', insert
'and making any improvement or undertaking any work that may be reasonably required, having regard to the size of the applicant's household, including any person living with him or intending to live with him and any person on whom he is dependent or who is dependent on him.'.
Government amendments Nos. 115 and 116.
Amendment No. 10, in page 77, line 34, at end insert—
' "improvement" includes alteration and enlargement;'.

Mr. Davies: The amendment aims to widen the scope of the useful relocation grants so that consideration may be given not only to the purchase price of property but to its improvement, and particularly to its enlargement, in particular circumstances.
I shall illustrate that for the House by referring to the hypothetical case of a northern city in which there is a clearance area that consists largely of older terraced homes, which perhaps suffer from subsidence, which are occupied mainly by Asian householders whose families are larger than average. Those families wish to stay in the area, but the properties surrounding the clearance area are not big enough to accommodate their needs.
Local authorities face real difficulties in such circumstances as they may not be able to find alternative housing for residents. The result may be that a few families remain in a clearance area for longer than might be expected, living virtually alone in an otherwise derelict street. That is not good for the local authority, whose clearance programme is delayed, and it is not good for the families affected.
I raised the matter with the Minister in Committee with a similarly worded amendment. At the time, the Minister said that repair grants provided an alternative that might meet the target. However, in practice, given the limitations on the budgets allocated to them and the size of the grant that may be allocated, repair grants could not meet the costs involved with enlarging a terraced property or some other large property around the clearance area so as to accommodate the needs of a large family.
I believe that the amendment is a useful extension to a generally welcome principle. I hope that the Minister has considered the matter since we discussed it in Committee and that he will look upon it favourably.

Mr. Clappison: We turn now to the subject of relocation grants. They are a new form of grant which are widely welcome and which will assist many people whose homes have been cleared. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth has rehearsed some of my arguments. As he said, we discussed the matter fairly fully in Committee. We said then why such amendments were unnecessary and undesirable.
It is undesirable to confuse the purpose of relocation grants by extending them to cover work such as improvements, alteration and enlargement, which are quite different. We propose to prescribe in regulations that dwellings qualifying for relocation grants should be of suitable size, type and condition to meet the reasonable needs of the grant applicant and that authorities should decide such questions. To the extent that an authority is sympathetic to the idea of someone buying a property that needs works of improvement and so forth to make it suitable, the proper recourse, having regard to the available resources and the authority's priorities, would be, as the hon. Gentleman anticipated, for it to consider giving an appropriate renovation grant. It would need to consider whether the works warranted one and, if so, it would need to be able to give people a commitment in principle to giving them an appropriate renovation grant soon after purchase. The authority would also need to exercise its discretion under clause 10(3) to waive the three-year qualifying period for renovation grants.
On amendments Nos. 115 and 116, although we do not support the amendments to paragraph (a) of clause 133(5), we have noticed a problem with the wording of paragraph (b) which we wish to correct to ensure that grant is not paid to acquire an unnecessarily expensive property. Our intention was to base the cost of acquisition on the lower of the actual cost or the amount that the local authority considered to be the reasonable cost of acquiring a comparable property in the same area. As currently worded, however, the provision refers to the cost of acquiring a property of the same sort, which might be interpreted rather narrowly. Amendment No. 113 corrects that and will ensure that all the factors that affect market value, such as age, condition, size and character, are taken into account in determining the reasonable cost.
Finally, amendment No. 160 enables the regulations governing the means test for relocation grants to make provision for authorities to check the information provided by grant applicants by requiring information or evidence from prescribed persons. This is to bring the powers into line with those for renovation grants in clause 30. On that basis, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Davies: I am sorry that the Minister has not used the time since Committee to come to a different view. I remain unconvinced by his arguments. My case has merits and I suspect that it will be taken up by the local government associations in their discussions with the Department of the Environment in the months and years to come. These useful relocation grants may be adapted by one of his successors to accommodate my points. Until then, and in that hope, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 115, in page 77, line 13, leave out

`in the same area a dwelling of the same type'

and insert

`a comparable dwelling in the same area'.

No. 116, in page 77, line 33, at end insert—

`(8A) Regulations may make provision requiring any information or evidence needed for the determination of any matter under this section to be furnished by such person as may be prescribed.'—[Mr. Brandreth.]

New clause 19

EXISTING HOUSING GRANTS: MEANING OF EXEMPT DISPOSAL

'.—(1) Section 124 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (relevant and exempt disposals for purposes of housing grants) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3) (exempt disposals), for paragraph (c) substitute—

"(c) a disposal of the whole of the dwelling in pursuance of any such order as is mentioned in subsection (4A) below;".

After subsection (4) insert—

"(4A) The orders referred to in subsection (3)(c) above are orders under—
(a) section 24 or 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property in connection with matrimonial proceedings),
(b) section 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (orders as to financial provision to be made from estate),
(c) section 17 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property after overseas divorce, &c.), or
(d) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents);".'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 6

HOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCHEME (No. 1)

'. In section 15 of the Social Security Act 1990 (grants for the improvement of energy efficiency in certain dwellings, &c.) for subsection (3)(a) substitute—

"(a) may, subject to subsections (IA) and (1B), specify or make provision for determining the amount or maximum amount of any grant under this section; and".'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 9—Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (No. 2)—
'. In section 15 of the Social Security Act 1990 (grants for the improvement of energy efficiency in certain dwellings, &c.) for subsection (2)(c) substitute—
(c) the descriptions of person from whom an application for a grant under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above may be entertained additional to those specified in subsection (1A);".'.
New clause 15—Availability of funds for grants—
`( ).—In section 15 of the Social Security Act 1990 (grants for the improvement of energy efficiency in certain dwellings, &c.) add new subsection (1B)—
(1B) Each year the Secretary of State shall publish his estimate of the expected number of qualifying grant applications under this section over the next 12 months and of the likely cost of the work, based on demand in previous years and on reports produced by local authorities under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, and he shall ensure that


sufficient resources are available that this amount of work can be carried out within 12 months of the application or as soon after as is reasonably practicable.".'.
New clause 17—Persons entitled to full grant—
'. In section 15 of the Social Security Act 1990 (grants for the improvement of energy efficiency in certain dwellings, &c.) after subsection (1) insert the following subsection—
(1A) Persons who shall be automatically entitled to a grant in value worth 100% of any maximum amount specified under subsection (3)(a) below for the purpose of this section shall include—

(a) all persons aged 60 years or over; and
(b)all persons in receipt of—
(i)family credit,
(ii)council tax benefit,
(iii)housing benefit,
(iv)disability living allowance,
(v)disability working allowance,
(vi)income support,
(vii)industrial injuries disablement benefit,
(viii)jobseeker's allowance, or
(ix)war disablement pension.".'.
Amendment No. 113, in clause 140, page 81, line 22, after 'domestic', insert 'heating'.

Mrs. Maddock: Hon. Members know that energy conservation is a subject close to my heart. Many hon. Members accept that it makes environmental sense and sense for the health of individuals and families. That is why I proposed the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 and the new clause.
The background to the matter is the changes that were made last year to home energy efficiency grants. I and many other hon. Members have been photographed helping engineers installing insulation measures. I was photographed with two of my constituents, an elderly couple who benefit substantially from such work. Hon. Members who escaped that cannot have escaped the anger of constituents and other groups, such as Age Concern and Neighbourhood Energy Action, at the Chancellor's cuts in the home energy efficiency scheme in last year's Budget.
Earlier in the year, many people had been pleased when the Paymaster General said in January 1995 that the scheme would receive £100 million a year over the next three years. The Minister reiterated that commitment soon afterwards. However, in December last year, the Chancellor slashed the budget by almost a third—£31 million. Many Conservative Members—though few are here tonight—have joined with other parties to criticise that unjustifiable cut which was a blatant breech of a promise.
Fifteen Conservative Members signed early-day motions 470 and 702, both of which could reasonably be interpreted as calling on the Government to reverse the cuts. That is not surprising because not only would 200,000 fewer homes be insulated but Neighbourhood Energy Action, which deals with the scheme, estimated that 1,000 jobs would be lost in the small insulation industry. Many of us received letters on the matter. In addition, it reckoned that 500 jobs would be lost in manufacturing and retailing. On the usual assumption that each lost job costs the Exchequer £9,000 in lost tax revenue and benefit paid out, this will lose the Government £13.5 million of the saving, apart from the health and environmental consequences.
It would be nice to reverse the cuts, but unfortunately the amendments that I tabled on that were not selected. However, the amendments that I have tabled to deal with the problems of pensioners to ensure that they will get 100 per cent. grants and that we have a reasonably sustainable way of ensuring that the grants go on from year to year were selected.
Many hon. Members were lobbied by people who work in the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) had a letter soon after the cuts from a company based in Poole which operates HEES in Devon. It was in no doubt about the cuts' effects. The points made by its managing director are pertinent. He was especially scathing about the decision to remove the entitlement to full HEES grants for people over the age of 60 who were not in receipt of means-tested benefit. In the area where he was operating, it meant that more than 90 per cent. of his company's HEES work was for people in that category. He maintains that such people were not wealthy but were being penalised for having small amounts of life-earned savings. He wrote:
Many people we see day in, day out are living on the breadline and without comforts such as insulation and draughtproofing and can suffer from hypothermia, illness and misery. The HEES grant enables us to provide them with valuable energy advice and refer them to caring organisations if further help is needed. This service is now to be taken away from thousands of needy householders who already are struggling with paying fuel bills with the addition of VAT.
Of course, the Government removed entitlement to pensioners who now get only 25 per cent. of the cost of insulation work on their homes. Ministers have made several claims about the cuts that deserve to be challenged. Firstly, they claim that their initial decision to extend eligibility for HEES to all pensioner households and to increase the scheme's budget to £100 million were linked to the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. As the second stage of VAT was defeated, there was no case for continuing with the concessions. Let us consider those claims in turn.
The extended eligibility for HEES was introduced with the first phase of VAT on home fuel and was at no point linked to increasing that to 17.5 per cent. Now the Government argue that that was the case, but that argument does not hold water. Pensioners throughout the country are suffering from the current 8 per cent. VAT levy yet, for the reasons that I have outlined, they have special heating needs and deserve special treatment.
The argument that the cut in funding is the result of the rejection of VAT stage 2 is even more spurious. The Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed that after stage 2 of VAT on fuel had been defeated, he would not claw back the Treasury's £30 million. Indeed, he made a virtue of that. The cut cannot be blamed on the failure of the House to accept the Government's proposal for the full rate of VAT to be levied on domestic fuel.
Ministers have tried to claim that cutting pensioner eligibility to 25 per cent. of the level of grants will not significantly affect take-up. The availability of evidence goes against that assertion. Neighbourhood Energy Action states that in its experience grants would need to be about 70 per cent. to stimulate take-up by elderly people. But the Minister of State has said that lower-income households will be protected from the cuts. He is on record as claiming that the total number of home energy efficiency scheme jobs this year may exceed that of last year.
The two assertions appear to be rather contradictory. If we were to exceed the 600,000 jobs which were undertaken last year, given the financial resources available to the companies concerned, that would require about half of the work to be done for people receiving only 25 per cent. of grant. Apart from the fact that that is unrealistic, only slightly more than 300,000 jobs would be carried out for low-income households. That would represent a cut of about 1,000 a quarter when compared with the jobs carried out last year. That can hardly be described as protection.
New clauses 17 and 19 would have the effect of re-entitling all people over the age of 60 years to 100 per cent. grants for improving the energy efficiency of their homes up to the standard of Government maximums for all eligible people. The list of entitling benefits would ensure that everyone currently included in the scheme would continue to be included.
Given the background that I have set out, we have long waiting lists for the HEES. The new clauses and amendment are designed to deal with that. The cut has exposed huge demand for the scheme. Ministers guaranteed—they could not have done otherwise—that all claimants over the age of 60 years registering for the scheme before April would retain entitlement to 100 per cent. grant aid, even if they were not on means-tested benefit. That led to huge demand in the early months of the year.
There is now a waiting list of 372,000 households. It is expected that well over half the HEES work done this year will be for applicants who do not meet the new criteria. That has been a good thing in some respects. Many of us encouraged our elderly constituents to take up grants before 31 March. At the same time, however, there will be considerable delays, which will continue.
Neighbourhood Energy Action is extremely concerned about delays. In its view, there is urgent need for transitional funding to restore the scheme's budget, to reduce delays and to avoid an undermining of public confidence, which is extremely important.
New clause 15 would tackle the waiting list by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to estimate annually the number of qualifying applications for HEES grants expected over the next 12 months. The obvious basis on which to make such an estimate would be the number of successful applications in previous years. The new clause would oblige the Secretary of State to estimate the likely cost of the work over the year. That could be largely undertaken on the basis of the previous year's figures along with the information that is being gathered from local authorities under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995.
The Secretary of State would be obliged to ensure that sufficient resources were available so that the expected level of demand could be met and that no one would have to wait for more than 12 months. I accept that much depends on the success of new clause 17.
Amendment No. 13 relates to domestic appliances. It would have the effect of clarifying the prevention of waste of energy in the use of domestic appliances in terms of the legitimate use of HEES grants. I am aware of the amendment that was tabled in Committee. The purpose behind amendment No. 113 is to ensure that only domestic heating appliances would be considered. There

will always be a limited budget and there will always be problems in targeting HEES moneys in the most effective ways to conserve energy.
I have been told by representatives of the energy conservation industry that they are concerned that domestic appliances will be taken to include non-heating appliances such as refrigerators. There is some capacity for energy savings in that area but such appliances would not represent an effective use of the limited funds that are currently available.
If the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment—given the limited resources, it is sensible—I hope that he will at least put on record the official Government interpretation of the phrase "domestic appliance" for future reference.
I am conscious of the late hour. I am not quite as fast as the Minister in getting through notes. I hope, however, that the House will bear with me. I intend to push for a Division on new clause 9, which is designed to deal with pensioners. I think that there is a great deal of support for it.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: This group of new clauses and an amendment might be described as a modest little number. It is designed to scrap cash limits, to wreck other energy-efficiency programmes and to ban the technology that might serve poor people best. It is not surprising, therefore, that I have come to the conclusion that the new clauses and amendment, taken together, are not a good idea.
The proposed new clauses and amendment would require an open-ended funding commitment to home energy efficiency schemes so that, regardless of demand, all applications for grant would be dealt with in a year, or as soon as reasonably practicable afterwards. That unlimited allocation would be based on a published annual assessment of estimated demand and cost, based on previous years' experience and local authorities' assessments drawn from their Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 reports.
We already have a published allocation of expenditure in the form of the Department's annual review. Of course, I hope, and expect, that local housing authorities, as energy conservation authorities, will take full account of the availability of grants such as those available under HEES in drawing up their reports under the 1995 Act. They will be an additional and useful tool in assessing the likely demand for grants and setting budgets. However, the allocations to particular programmes cannot be driven by such reports, as the new clauses require.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) referred to the backlog that has arisen from our commitment, as simple equity required, to honour at the old rates all grant applications made before the recent change in the rules, which introduced contributions from better-off claimants. Given that 372,000 people pre-registered their interest in having a grant by 1 April, the reduction of the waiting list is a matter of simple mathematics. By the end of June over 140,000 grants had been paid, which is a commendable performance. About 27 per cent. of these grants were paid to people on the pre-registration list.
After three months of working through the transitional effects of the recent changes, experience clearly shows that low-income households are not being disadvantaged. Those involved in administering and delivering the scheme are doing an excellent job in dealing fairly with


all claimants for grants. As the number of pre-registrations held centrally diminishes, the proportion of grants paid to claimants referred to the scheme through the conventional local channels will increase, helping installers to plan their work even more efficiently and thus reducing waiting times to a minimum.
I understand the hon. Lady's desire to look for a quick-fix solution to the present queues for grants, but her new clause would not be helpful. The lack of a cash limit to the scheme would make it almost impossible to plan the allocations to regions and to individual installation companies, which would in turn suffer uncertainty about the investment, training and employment needed for grant schemes. Without the discipline of a fixed budget, the incentives to achieve efficiency gains disappear and costs would inevitably rise. Outside the scheme, the realities of Government finance mean that other equally worthy programmes, many with a strong social dimension, would suffer as their budgets were raided to support unchecked demand in the home energy efficiency scheme. That would not be a good solution to the problem.
The hon. Lady asked about amendment No. 113. It might be helpful if I explain why the clause contains the provision on appliances. We looked carefully at measures that have the potential to give greater benefits to households that are in most need of help, and best overall value for money. We concluded that better domestic heating systems are important, but the existing power does not contain provision for tackling waste of energy in the heating of dwellings. There is some doubt about whether the power is sufficient to permit expenditure on replacing or supplementing elements within a system already installed, by, for example, substituting a more efficient boiler or adding an electronic hot water and heating control system. The phrase "domestic appliances" does not cover plug-in devices such as television sets and vacuum cleaners. Although there is scope for significant gains in energy efficiency in such devices, there are other ways of doing that, such as better labelling.
The hon. Lady has not made a good case for her amendments, and I ask the House to reject them.

Mrs. Maddock: I thank the Minister for his comments on amendment No. 113, but I am disappointed, as I understand that the Government are about to make a statement on the connection between good health and various environmental matters. Yet today we have seen just how shallow that commitment is. These amendments would definitely help to ensure that people do not suffer from diseases that are brought about by homes that are inadequately heated and damp. The Government had an opportunity to prevent that today. Indeed, they had an opportunity to restore rights to pensioners.
The Minister expressed his view, but it does not accord with that of many of the organisations involved in these matters outside, which will be as disappointed as the pensioners and I that the mean-minded move that was made last year will continue. When you consider the huge budget of £31 million, it is nothing but mean spirited. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 9

HOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCHEME (No. 2)

' In section 15 of the Social Security Act 1990 (grants for the improvement of energy efficiency in certain dwellings, &c.) for subsection (2)(c) substitute—

"(c) the descriptions of person from whom an application for a grant under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above may be entertained additional to those specified in subsection (1A);".'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 273.

Division No. 177]
[9.01 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
McAvoy, Thomas


Adams, Mrs Irene
Macdonald, Calum


Anger, Nick
McKelvey, William


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Mackinlay, Andrew


Bennett, Andrew F
MacShane, Denis


Betts, Clive
Madden, Max


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Maddock, Diana


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Mahon, Alice


Callaghan, Jim
Marek, Dr John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Canavan, Dennis
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Mullin, Chris


Chidgey, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Cohen, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Corston, Jean
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Pike, Peter L


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Rendel, David


Donohoe, Brian H
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Rogers, Allan


Etherington, Bill
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Flynn, Paul
Rowlands, Ted


Fraser, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Galloway, George
Skinner, Dennis


Gapes, Mike
Soley, Clive


Gerrard, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman A
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Godsiff, Roger
Stevenson, George


Graham, Thomas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hanson, David
Timms, Stephen


Hoey, Kate
Tipping, Paddy


Home Robertson, John
Trickett, Jon


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Watson, Mike


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Welsh, Andrew


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Winnick, David


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Wise, Audrey


Khabra, Piara S
Wray, Jimmy


Kirkwood, Archy
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Livingstone, Ken



Llwyd, Elfyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lynne, Ms Liz
Mr. Don Foster and


McAllion, John
Mr. Simon Hughes.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baldry, Tony


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Amess, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bates, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Batiste, Spencer






Bellingham, Henry
Garnier, Edward


Bendall, Vivian
Gill, Christopher


Beresfond, Sir Paul
Gillan, Cheryl


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Body, Sir Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Booth, Hartley
Gorst, Sir John


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandreth, Gyles
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Sir Graham
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Hawkins, Nick


Budgen, Nicholas
Hawksley, Warren


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, Jerry


Butcher, John
Heald, Oliver


Butler, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Butterfill, John
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Carttiss, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cash, William
Horam, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howard, Fit Hon Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clappison, James
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunter, Andrew


Congdon, David
Jack, Michael


Conway, Derek
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jenkin, Bernard


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jessel, Toby


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Couchman, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cran, James
Key, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dover, Den
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Duncan, Alan
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Duncan Smith, Iain
Legg, Barry


Dunn, Bob
Leigh, Edward


Dykes, Hugh
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Elletson, Harold
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lidington, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Luff, Peter


Faber, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fabricant, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacKay, Andrew


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fishburn, Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Madel, Sir David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Malone, Gerald


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mans, Keith


French, Douglas
Martand, Paul


Fry, Sir Peter
Marlow, Tony


Gale, Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gallie, Phil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Mates, Michael





Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Spink, Dr Robert


Merchant, Piers
Spring, Richard


Mills, Iain
Sproat, Iain


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Moate, Sir Roger
Steen, Anthony


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Stephen, Michael


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Stem, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Allan


Moss, Malcolm
Streeter, Gary


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Sumberg, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sykes, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Norris, Steve
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Page, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Paice, James
Thomason, Roy


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pickles, Eric
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tracey, Richard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tredinnick, David


Portillo Rt Hon Micheal
Trend, Michael


Powell, William (Corby)
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Richards, Rod
Viggers, Peter



Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Riddick, Graham
Walden, George


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Robathan, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Ward, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waterson, Nigel


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Watts, John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wells, Bowen


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Whitney, Ray


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Whittingdale, John


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilkinson, John


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Willetts, David


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shersby, Sir Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Sims, Sir Roger
Wood, Timothy


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Speed, Sir Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Spencer, Sir Derek
Mr. Simon Burns and


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Richard Ottaway.

Question accordingly negatived.

IMPROVEMENT OF ACCESS AND FACILITIES FOR DISABLED PEOPLE WITH RESPECT TO NEW BUILDINGS

'.—The Secretary of State shall, within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, introduce under his powers in section 1 of the Building Act 1984 such extension to the Building Regulations 1991 as he considers reasonable to ensure that in the construction of new dwellings provision is made for disabled people to gain unimpeded access to and use of the dwelling and its facilities, in line with the purposes outlined in section 23(1) above.'.—[Mr. Thurnham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who has long been associated with this excellent cause, having held a conference in 1989 on lifetime homes. He has strongly advocated the cause since then. I congratulate the Government on issuing a consultation paper a year ago, which gave the impression that the Government wished to act promptly.
The consultation paper was excellent and called on house builders and designers
to examine the consequences of the proposals for their current designs.
The Government seem to have been held up since then, because it is more than 12 months since the consultation process finished. I guess that the cause of the delay is the opposition by the House Builders Federation; I shall deal briefly with the federation's case.
The House Builders Federation was misguided in thinking that the proposals were unnecessary and too costly. To have said that they were unnecessary goes against all the representations that I have received. I am pleased to see the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People in his place. One of his predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), spoke on the issue in 1992. He said that he was strongly in favour of the proposals and that they should go ahead without delay. He continued:
we should ensure that all new houses are built so that they are properly accessible to disabled people. That would be a minimum cost compared with the cost of adaptation at some later stage."—[Official Report, 31 January 1992: Vol. 202, c. 1254]
The Select Committee on the Environment reported in February. The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency will recall his time on the Select Committee and his general support at that time for similar proposals at an earlier stage. I hope, therefore, that the Government will fully consider those points and the representations from Age Concern, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and 30 other organisations that represent not just disabled people—such bodies as the National Federation of Housing Associations and the Chartered Institute of Housing, which are in favour of the regulations, which will allow access to new homes for disabled people. It is only sensible.
The House Builders Federation said that the proposals were too costly. Again, it was misguided. In saying that they were unnecessary, it was also misguided. It was looking perhaps to the past rather than to the future. In the next 50 years, there will be twice as many 75-year-olds as there are now. It is important that the houses that we build today are built for the future, and not according to some dim and distant past, when wheelchairs did not exist.
9.15 pm
The House Builders Federation was mistaken to say that the proposals were too costly. The Government's figures suggest approximately £200 per house. If we take the figure of 140,000 new private homes being built every year, the cost would be £28 million a year, compared with the £350 million a year that is being spent to adapt old houses. If we take the federation's figure of £2,000 to
£3,000 to cover the costs of part M of the regulations—which is far too high—even that would come out at no more than £300 million or £400 million a year.
I compare that with the cost of land, because that is the greatest burden on house builders in providing houses at low cost, not the extension of part M of the regulations. The latest figures for the cost of land show that, in the second half of 1994, on average, building land cost £400,000 per hectare. If we take an average of 23 units per hectare, the cost of land per plot is £17,350. If the cost of part M of the building regulations puts up the cost of building a house, without any change in the price at which those houses can be sold, the residual value of the land will take the brunt of the expenditure, which will not, in any case, be that great. If we take even the high average figures of the House Builders Federation, it is only one seventh of the amount spent on land every year.
The federation's figures suggest that it would cost only £300 million or £400 million per annum to cover the cost of part M of the building regulations, but house builders are spending £2.5 billion a year on buying land, so I ask the Government where their priorities lie. In holding up part M of the building regulations, all they are doing is bolstering the price of land. It would not affect the cost of constructing a house, other than the fact that the extra cost would come from the cost of land, because it is the builders who bid up the price of land, based on the price at which they can sell a house.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has tabled the new clause. Does he agree that it is fine for house builders to assess the cost to them, but it is for the Government to assess the costs and benefits to society as a whole? The costs of adaptations, of people having to move home and of hospitalisation must be weighed in the balance when we consider this policy's merits. Does he agree that it is more than high time that the Government carried through what they have already encouragingly proposed?

Mr. Thurnham: It is far too high a price to pay not to act. On the Government's figures, to act would cost merely £30 million a year, whereas it costs £350 million a year to adapt existing houses, so it is madness not to act. There is huge popular support to act.
It is mistaken of the House Builders Federation to resist the proposal. It does so because it thinks that it will add to the costs of building a house, without paying regard to the amount by which it bids up the price of land. The price of land would fall, therefore, to cover the costs of making modern houses properly accessible to disabled people. The Government should not take the side of landowners against disabled people.

Mr. Vaz: I will not detain the House for long, but I must pay tribute to the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for tabling the new clause. Had they not done so, I can assure the House that the Opposition would have.
The new clause is modest and has enormous popular support. Many organisations have written to hon. Members on both sides of the House to urge them to accept the proposals. We shall vote with the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East and for Mid-Kent in support of the new clause.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I have three short comments. First, the new clause is by no means directed


purely at the convenience of disabled people. I have been to a host of different housing estates and asked people whether they find steps up to the front door, narrow entrances and the absence of a lavatory on the ground floor helpful. They all say that those are unhelpful, whether it is because they have a small child and a buggy, a shopping trolley, an elderly relative staying with them, or whatever. Undoubtedly, those are disadvantages for people of all ages. Let us consider having to take a 17-year-old who has damaged his hip playing rugger and who is in plaster from hip to ankle up the often steep stairs of a house every time he needs to go to the lavatory. It is absurd that modern houses are still designed in the same way as they were many years ago.
Secondly, a substantial part of the alleged costs of the changes stems from the fact that we are talking about non-standard equipment. Were it normal to make doors a few centimetres wider, which is all that is required to allow wheelchair access, to place windows at such a height that people lying in bed could see out of them, rather than a few feet above the floor for no valid reason, and to put electric sockets on the wall where anyone, however unfit, can reach them, instead of where they are at the moment, where only toddlers, who are told to keep away from them, can reach them easily, we would discover—as has been proved in the rather limping Rowntree developments in Hull and York—how useful those changes are to the ordinary able-bodied family as well as to disabled people, and they are relatively inexpensive.
Finally, builders are anxious because they say that young couples, in particular, do not want to be reminded that one day they might not be fully fit, but I can tell them that experience shows that, on estates where they have done away with steps up to the front door—to take the most important example—people do not even notice if it is a standard entry.
Builders are saying that they do not want the change because they do not want to be the first to do it, as they might be at a competitive disadvantage. The essential reason for including the provision in the regulations is that everyone will be starting from a level playing field— good phrase in this context.
Two of my constituents are in wheelchairs. They live in the only bungalow on an estate that was built less than 10 years ago; it is the only dwelling on the estate to which they can gain access. Should they wish to talk to neighbours other than in the street, the neighbours have to come to them and they have to carry the cost of the coffee, tea and all the rest of it—and they are the poorest couple on the estate.
These regulations should be introduced and I welcome this opportunity to tell my hon. Friend the Minister, who is carrying out a consultation exercise, that that is what the public want.

Sir John Hannam: I endorse the objectives of the new clause. Having been engaged for about 15 years in the parliamentary campaign to get access provision for disabled people and having seen the Government make substantial progress in 1985 with the introduction of part M regulations for public and commercial buildings, I am anxious that residential accommodation should also be made fully accessible.
The Government's consultation paper in January 1995 provoked a massive response from more than 1,000 organisations and individuals. It is now more than a year

since the consultation period ended in April 1995. I can understand my hon. Friend the Minister's desire to consider carefully the ramifications of such changes to building regulations. They always have far greater effects than one imagines when one sets out on that path.
If we do not pass the new clause today, we need to be reassured by my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government are not only merely sitting on their hands on this important issue. Bringing all homes into line with those built by many housing associations would create more flexible and more accessible housing for the next 100 years. This is not a question of doing something on a temporary basis, because what we do now will last for a very long time and will result in considerable savings in public expenditure and public funds in coming years.
The Government have themselves proposed to extend building regulations to improve access for disabled people to domestic dwellings. Therefore, all we are really talking about is the timing of the changes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can today provide us with the necessary assurance that, with the powers that he already has in his possession, the new clause will not be required, and that he will soon be able to make the progress that we want on this very important matter for disabled people.

Mr. Chris Davies: I support the new clause. I remind the House that there are more than 6 million registered disabled people in this country, 4 million of whom have mobility problems. It is now a demographic fact that the number of elderly people in society is likely to grow as a proportion of the total population, and, inevitably, the number of people with mobility problems will also grow.
The current situation is that we cannot afford to make the necessary adaptations to the homes of people with mobility problems. But if we do nothing now and if we do not alter the regulations, we shall never be able to afford to make the necessary changes. I argue that the price for doing nothing is simply too high.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for his kind comments about the consultation paper, "Ending Discrimination Against Disabled People", because, as he knows, I was responsible for it during my previous existence as Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.
While in that role, I also had several opportunities to visit lifetime homes in different areas—such as in south London and, most particularly, those built by the Rowntree Trust near York. I pay tribute to those organisations for the impressive work that they have done. I know that the people who live in those homes are extremely happy and very impressed with the design of their homes.
The consultation paper, if anything, has been too successful—at least to the extent that it has provoked an enormous number of responses. Many of those have been contradictory, as I am sure hon. Members will understand, but the interest is certainly there.
The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East seeks to impose a duty on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to extend the scope of building regulations regardless of the outcome of the consultation required under the Building Act 1984. It also seeks to impose an arbitrary time limit and to establish an


entirely inappropriate link between building regulations and the purposes of disabled facilities grants. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept the new clause.
The Building Act 1984 requires my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consult the Building Regulations Advisory Committee and other representative organisations with an interest in the matter before making such changes, and that is already being done. The new clause seeks to impose change by decree, regardless of the outcome of that consultation. I think that there would be every chance of judicial review if it were done by decree.
In the White Paper, the Government undertook to consult widely on proposals to extend building regulations to help disabled people with access to or in domestic dwellings. That undertaking has been honoured. However, as I said, the consultation that has been conducted reveals conflicting views on how best to implement any changes. There are also practical and costing issues that need to be addressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) highlighted those issues, but he rightly said that he wants something that will last for many years—as do I. Therefore, we must get it right. For those reasons, it would be entirely inappropriate to require the making of regulations within the arbitrary time limit proposed.
The new clause goes far further than the proposals envisaged by the White Paper and the consultation. It fails to recognise that a clear distinction should be drawn between the minimum acceptable requirements required in regulations to assist disabled people in remaining in their own homes and in visiting friends and relatives, and the quite separate concept of a grant regime that is designed to enable a person with a particular disability to make specific adaptations to enable him to live in a particular dwelling.
I can appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East is anxious to see the matter of extending part M to dwellings settled, and he is certainly not alone in that. But the approach proposed in his new clause is neither helpful nor relevant to the Bill, and I ask him to withdraw it.
My hon. Friend suggested that extending part M to dwellings will save expenditure on disability facilities grants, but that suggestion does not stand up to examination. Certainly, the £350 million that he mentioned is not correct—the figure is nearer £90 million. Part M would apply only to new dwellings, which add only some 1 per cent. per annum to the total housing stock. The greater problem by far is adaptations to existing dwellings, and DFGs will continue to be needed for those. The DFGs are also used for adaptations and appliances beyond the type of structural features that can be dealt with through building regulations, so DFGs will still be required for those. Of course, in the fulness of time, there will be some benefit on some types of DFG expenditure, but it will be small, very long term and, for the foreseeable future, imperceptible.
9.30 pm
I have already explained that this is not a straightforward issue. We have received more than 1,000

responses to the consultation. Opinions differ on both the form of the proposals and the costs. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said that some builders argued along one line, other builders advance a different argument—some of them certainly would not accept the argument that he advanced. The proposals affect every future new home, not just disabled people, and raise fundamental issues about future home design and the role of regulations in influencing those designs. Those are not matters that can be judged to a tight timetable. I can say no more than that we shall look at the matter and deal with it as expeditiously as circumstances allow. That is a practical response to a practical series of problems.

Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible, but the Government have had plenty of time—more than 12 months—so there should be no further delay. I call on the House to support the words of the Environment Committee, when it called on the Government to implement the measures forthwith. I wish to press new clause 10 to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 270.

Division No. 178]
[9.31 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clelland, David


Ainger, Nick
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coffey, Ann


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Connarty, Michael


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ashton, Joe
Corston, Jean


Austin-Walker, John
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cummings, John


Barron, Kevin
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Battle, John
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bayley, Hugh
Dalyell, Tam


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Darling, Alistair


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davidson, Ian


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benton, Joe
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Bermingham, Gerald
Denham, John


Berry, Roger
Dewar, Donald


Betts, Clive
Dixon, Don


Blunkett, David
Dobson, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Donohoe, Brian H


Bradley, Keith
Dowd, Jim


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Byers, Stephen
Eastham, Ken


Caborn, Richard
Etherington, Bill


Callaghan, Jim
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, D N
Flynn, Paul


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Don (Bath)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Foulkes, George


Chidgey, David
Fraser, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Fyfe, Maria


Church, Judith
Galloway, George


Clapham, Michael
Gapes, Mike


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Garrett, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gerrard, Neil






Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michael, Alun


Godman, Dr Norman A
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Godsiff, Roger
Milburn, Alan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Miller, Andrew


Gordon, Mildred
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Graham, Thomas
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe


Gunnell, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hall, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hanson, David
Mowlam, Marjorie


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mudie, George


Heppell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Murphy, Paul


Hinchliffe, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hodge, Margaret
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoey, Kate
O'Hara, Edward


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Olner, Bill


Home Robertson, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hood, Jimmy
Parry, Robert


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pearson, Ian


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hutton, John
Purchase, Ken


Illsley, Eric
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ingram, Adam
Randall, Stuart


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Raynsford, Nick


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Reid, Dr John


Jamieson, David
Rendel, David


Janner, Greville
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Dr. Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jowell, Tessa
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Keen, Alan
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool' Br'dg'n)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Khabra, Piara S
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kilfoyle, Peter
Short, Clare


Kirkwood, Archy
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Livingstone, Ken
Soley, Clive


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Eddie
Spellar, John


Lynne, Ms Liz
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McAllion, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McAvoy, Thomas
Steinberg, Gerry


McCartney, Ian
Stevenson, George


Macdonald, Calum
Stott, Roger


McKelvey, William
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McNamara, Kevin
Thurnham, Peter


MacShane, Denis
Timms, Stephen


McWilliam, John
Tipping, Paddy


Madden, Max
Touhig, Don


Maddock, Diana
Trickett, Jon


Mahon, Alice
Turner, Dennis


Mandelson, Peter
Vaz, Keith


Marek, Dr John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walley, Joan


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Wareing, Robert N


Meacher, Michael
Watson, Mike


Meale, Alan
Welsh, Andrew





Wicks, Malcolm
Wray, Jimmy


Wigley, Dafydd
Wright, Dr Tony


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Peter Hain and


Wise, Audrey
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Dover, Den


Alexander, Richard
Duncan, Alan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Elletson, Harold


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baldry, Tony
Evennett, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Faber, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fabricant, Michael


Bates, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Batiste, Spencer
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bellingham, Henry
Fishburn, Dudley


Bendall, Vivian
Forth, Eric


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Body, Sir Richard
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
French, Douglas


Booth, Hartley
Fry, Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gallie, Phil


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowis, John
Garnier, Edward


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Brandreth, Gyles
Gillan, Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bright, Sir Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gorst, Sir John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butcher, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Heald, Oliver


Churchill, Mr
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochfond)
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre Fofst)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jack, Michael


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tm
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine






Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shersby, Sir Michael


Legg, Barry
Sims, Sir Roger


Leigh, Edward
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lord, Michael
Spring, Richard


Luff, Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacKay, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Stephen, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Madel, Sir David
Sumberg, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sweeney, Walter


Malone, Gerald
Sykes, John


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mates, Michael
Thomason, Roy


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mills, Iain
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Moate, Sir Roger
Tracey, Richard


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Tredinnick, David


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Trend, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Moss, Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Norris, Steve
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Ward, John


Page, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Paice, James
Waterson, Nigel


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Watts, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Whitney, Ray


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whittingdale, John


Pickles, Eric
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilkinson, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Willetts, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wilshire, David


Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Richards, Rod
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm



Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. Simon Burns and


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. Roger Knapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 16

EMPTY HOMES SCHEMES

`. —(1) Every local housing authority shall have a scheme ("the Empty Homes Scheme") for reducing the number of unoccupied residential properties and potential residential properties in its area.

(2) The Empty Homes Scheme shall be framed with the aims of—
(a) dealing with empty properties before their condition deteriorates and they become eyesores and health hazards,
(b) efficiently meeting housing need by encouraging owners of empty properties to let their properties, using registered social landlords as managing agents where appropriate, and
(c) encouraging the conversion of empty offices and shops, and vacant rooms above them, into residential accommodation where this is appropriate.

(3) The Empty Homes Scheme shall include all properties within the local housing authority's boundaries, including properties owned by registered social landlords, Government departments and the authority themselves, as well as privately owned properties.

(4) The Secretary of State may, through the Housing Partnership Fund and other monies at his disposal, provide grants to local housing authorities to assist them in bring empty properties back into use.'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The hour is late, so I fear that this matter will not be allowed the time that it merits. The new clause seeks to give every local authority a duty to formulate a strategy to deal with empty homes in its area. This is an important part of a renovation and renewal strategy for every area of the country. To improve appearances and discourage crime in any area, empty properties must be filled up as quickly as possible. Boarded up homes attract vandals and fall into disrepair more quickly. They are also an inefficient way to use our housing stock. Nobody likes empty properties. People who live next door to them do not like them; people who must walk past them when they are vandalised and derelict do not like them; and the homeless are rightly angry at the waste of resources.
The vast majority of the 800.000 empty properties in Britain today are in the private sector. The Government's setting up of the empty homes agency and their housing partnership fund have provided some—although not enough—progress. Local authorities are the key to tackling the problem. Many have good empty homes schemes and much has been achieved by publicising how they work. Many privately owned properties have thus been brought back into use. Housing associations, as managing agents, have been useful in that respect.
The new clause does not seek to bind local authorities, but would require them to have a strategy for dealing with all the empty properties in their areas and to say exactly how they intend to go about dealing with them. It would allow them to be innovative locally and use their own ideas in dealing with the problem. Local authorities are required to have strategies on many matters, and they are usually far more tightly drawn than my proposal. The new clause would require local authorities to look at all type of housing: private sector; housing association; and its own stock.
9.45 pm
The Government have far too many empty properties. The void rate in Ministry of Defence properties is 20 per cent. and has long been a scandal—[Interruption.] I hear muttering from the Conservative Benches. It is the highest percentage of any sector. Last week, I listened with interest to a debate in another place and heard the Minister admit the incompetence of the Ministry of Defence in housing matters. He used that as the main justification for the housing sale. It is incredible that the Government use their irresponsibility to justify selling off those properties.
The new clause would spread good practice in tackling the problem of empty properties. Many councils do good work, and I commend to the House the work done by New Forest district council which, between last autumn and April, by having a decent empty homes strategy, brought 75 properties back into use.
The proposal is an important part of urban renewal, and I hope that the Minister will respond constructively.

Mr. Clappison: I have some sympathy with the objective that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) sets out to achieve. I certainly sympathise with the importance that she attaches to this subject.
I invite the hon. Lady to bear in mind our strategic approach to private sector renewal and how empty homes will fit into that. That strategy, which will in many cases include a specific empty homes strategy, will form the basis of a local authority's bid for resources as part of its housing investment programme. The allocation of available resources between authorities will take account of each authority's strategy and of its past performance in dealing with all types of private sector housing renewal.
We recognise that local authorities have a key role to play in encouraging the re-use of empty properties. That is why we are providing a grant to the Empty Homes Agency to expand and train a network of regional associates to work with local authorities on their strategy for unoccupied residential and potential residential properties.
Notwithstanding the hon. Lady's comments, the new clause would fetter local authorities' discretion in finding appropriate solutions to the problem in their areas. It is for each authority to find its own strategy in the light of its knowledge of the area. Although I sympathise with what the hon. Lady seeks to achieve, I believe that it is unnecessary. Therefore, I invite her to withdraw her new clause.

Mrs. Maddock: I listened to the Under-Secretary with interest. It is unfortunate that the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency did not reply; he has worked with me in involving local authorities in bringing forward various strategies that are duties. If a strategy is a duty, facts and figures are put together to enable authorities to target their resources. That was the idea behind my Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 and the new clause. I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. Due to the lateness of the hour, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 141

URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS:PRE-DISSOLUTION TRANSFERS

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 142, in page 81, line 36, after 'body', insert
'or a legally constituted trust'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 135, in line 42, at end insert—
'A statutory body to which this section applies shall have the sole purpose of winding up the affairs of urban development corporations.'.
No. 141, in page 82, line 27, after 'consult', insert
'all members of Parliament and councillors elected to represent the area. and'.
No. 134, in line 28, after 'situated', insert
'and any statutory body to which transfer of property, rights or liabilities is to be made under this section.'.

Mr. Hughes: The amendments raise two simple issues, but they are relevant for those of us who represent and live in areas covered by urban development corporations. I live in the London Docklands development corporation area. The amendments deal with residuary bodies and pre-dissolution transfers in relation to urban development corporations. The Government's current policy allows urban development corporations to be established—there is one in your part of the world, Madam Speaker, there is one in London and there is one in most urban areas these days. From the beginning, the Government's policy was that they could be wound up together; it was then amended to allow them to be wound up in parts. This is the third stage of the policy, and it allows transfers prior to wind-up.
Two concerns have been raised with me. First, if there should be a transfer before wind-up of part or all of a development corporation, it should be possible for the assets that are held by the development corporation in the public domain to be transferred to a trust. I ask the Minister to confirm whether there can be a transfer to a trust. At the moment, the law is ambiguous, and it suggests that the orders have to transfer assets to a statutory body. Trusts are not necessarily statutory bodies and there are those who have an interest in a transfer to a trust, including those in my area of Bermondsey and Rotherhithe.
Secondly, there should be consultation with all those who are elected to represent the areas in question. The local authority may be of one political hue but it may not represent the area covered by the development corporation. In my area, the development corporation covers the Surrey docks area of Bermondsey, which is entirely represented by the Liberal Democrats—there are Liberal Democrat councillors and there is a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament. Consulting the local authority is fine, but there is not necessarily consultation with the local councillors or with the local Member of Parliament. The reverse has happened on the other side of the river. I hope that the Minister can give undertakings that transfers to trusts are possible and that, in the future,


there will be consultation with all the local councillors and with the local Members of Parliament on all urban development corporation matters.

Mr. Vaz: The Labour party's amendments—Nos. 134 and 135—seek to ensure that any new bodies established under the Act exist purely for the purpose of winding up urban development corporations and housing action trusts, and not for any other purpose. Amendment No. 134 seeks to put on the face of the Bill what the Minister said in Committee; that it would be foolhardy to impose a duty on a new body if it did not wish to have any of the powers transferred to it. Amendment No. 134 seeks to ensure that there are proper discussions and formal meetings, rather than informal discussions, to ensure that the powers are transferred.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I shall make three points. As to the first point about trusts, it is a case of been there, seen it, done it. Amendment No. 142 would enable the Secretary of State to transfer the residual property, rights and liabilities of an urban development corporation to a legally constituted trust as an alternative to transfer to a statutory residuary body. However, urban development corporations already have the power to transfer to any other body, by agreement, the whole or any part of their undertaking. That may include transfer to a legally constituted trust. Shortly before Central Manchester development corporation wound up in March this year, it transferred to a trust its ownership of a visitor centre in Castlefield and the responsibility for maintaining environmental improvements in that area.
Secondly, the proposal creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Having separate residuary bodies for the various development corporations and so on would cut across the need to run them economically. When the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) reconsiders the matter, I hope that he will agree with me on that point.
Finally, as to consultation with Members of Parliament and councils, I do not believe for a moment that the hon. Gentleman or Liberal Democrat councillors would be backward in coming forward. I think that there is merit in consulting local authorities, but not with councillors individually on a statutory basis. People should make their views known either directly or through their Members of Parliament. I am sure that that will occur.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's final point, I restate what I said in Committee: we are not in the business of not having prior consultations and meetings, but there is no need to do so on a formal basis.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister's reassurance on my first point. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) can deal with the second point at a later stage. However, I am disappointed about the final point concerning consultation. The Minister should accept that formal consultation should be written into the legislation and I shall pursue the matter with him through correspondence. I hope that he will accept that that duty

should be imposed on corporations. In the hope that that will prove possible—and given that it is four minutes to 10 o'clock—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 144

ORDERS, REGULATIONS AND DIRECTIONS

Amendment made: No. 101, in page 84, line 3, at end insert '104(1C),'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Schedule 3

REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS

Amendment made: No. 128, in page 97, line 17, after '30' insert

', the words "The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 section 138(1)".'.[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 146

EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 124, in page 84, line 19, leave out 'and 143' and insert

', 143 and (Existing housing grants: meaning of exempt disposal)'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 148

COMMENCEMENT

Amendments made: No. 125, in page 84, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert—

'(1) The following provisions of this Act come into force on Royal Assent—
(a) section 144 (orders, regulations and irections),
(b) sections 146 to 149 (extent, commencement and other general provisions).'.

No. 118, in page 85, line 3, after '129' insert

'and (Regeneration and development: Welsh Development Agency)'.

No. 127, in line 6, at end insert—

'section (Existing housing grants: meaning of exempt disposal) (existing housing grants: meaning of exempt disposal),'.

No. 126, in page 85, leave out lines 7 and 8—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I commend this excellent Bill to the House. I place on record my appreciation of the work that officials have done behind the scenes and of that of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), in taking through much of the legislation.

Mr. Vaz: I shall be even briefer than the Minister. Only two months have elapsed since the Second Reading of the Bill. I place on record my thanks to all members of the


Committee. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) had an excellent working relationship: it was not so much gone with the wind as gone with the Whip. They ensured that the work of the Committee proceeded diligently.
We shall vote against Third Reading because the fundamental principle remains that the Bill seeks to end mandatory grants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said on Second Reading, it is a rag-bag of a Bill. We—and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) in respect of its housing parts—have tried to ensure that suitable amendments were tabled.
I thank the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for his support on the construction part of the Bill. The Government still have no regeneration strategy. Even though the single regeneration budget has been, as it were, legalised, there is a lack of cohesion. For those reasons, we shall oppose Third Reading.

Mr. Chris Davies: The Bill deals with housing grants. I regret that, as its proceedings reach their conclusion, not one extra penny has been promised for, nor an extra commitment made to, making housing grants available to people who live in unfit homes, who desperately need them.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 250.

Division No. 179]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Budgen, Nicholas


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Burns, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butcher, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Butler, Peter


Amess, David
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Cash, William


Baldry, Tony
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Churchill, Mr.


Bates, Michael
Clappison, James


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bellingham, Henry
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bendall, Vivian
Congdon, David


Beresford, Sr Paul
Conway, Derek


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Body, Sir Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Booth, Hartley
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Cran, James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bowis, John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bright, Sir Graham
Devlin, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Browning, Mrs Angela
Dover, Den


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Duncan, Alan





Duncan Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Legg, Barry


Elletson, Harold
Leigh, Edward


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lidington, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareharm)


Faber, David
Lord, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Luff, Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fishburn, Dudley
MacKay, Andrew


Forth, Eric
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Madel, Sir David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


French, Douglas
Malone, Gerald


Fry, Sir Peter
Mans, Keith


Gale, Roger
Marland, Paul


Gallie, Phil
Martow, Tony


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garnier, Edward
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Merchant, Piers


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mills, Iain


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorst, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Norrris, Steve


Hawkins, Nick
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawksley, Warren
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Paice, James


Hendry, Charles
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pawsey, James


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Dame Jill
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shersby, Sir Michael






Sims, Sir Roger
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tracey, Richard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tredinnick, David


Speed, Sir Keith
Trend, Michael


Spencer, Sir Derek
Trotter, Neville


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spink, Dr Robert
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spring, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sproat, Iain
Walden, George


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Ward, John


Stephen, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stern, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Stewart, Allan
Watts, John


Streeter, Gary
Wells, Bowen



Whitney, Ray


Sumberg, David
Whittingdale, John


Sweeney, Walter
Widdecombe, Ann


Sykes, John



Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry



Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Willetts, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Thomason, Roy
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thompson, Patrick



Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Sebastian Coe and


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Gyles Brandreth.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ainger, Nick
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Allen, Graham
Coffey, Ann


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Connarty, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Austin-Walker, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corston, Jean


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cummings, John


Bayley, Hugh
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dalyell, Tam


Bell, Stuart
Darling, Alistair


Bennett, Andrew F
Davidson, Ian


Benton, Joe
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Berry, Roger
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Betts, Clive
Denham, John


Blunkett, David
Dewar, Donald


Boateng, Paul
Dixon, Don


Bradley, Keith
Dobson, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Donohoe, Brian H


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dowd, Jim


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Byers, Stephen
Eastham, Ken


Caborn, Richard
Etherington, Bill


Callaghan, Jim
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, D N
Flynn, Paul


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Don (Bath)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Foulkes, George


Chidgey, David
Fraser, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Fyfe, Maria


Church, Judith
Galloway, George


Clapham, Michael
Gapes, Mike


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Garrett, John





Gerrard, Neil
Meacher, Michael


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Meale, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A
Michael, Alun


Godsiff, Roger
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Milburn, Alan


Gordon, Mildred
Miller, Andrew


Graham, Thomas
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morgan, Rhodri


Grocott, Bruce
Morley, Elliot


Gunnell, John
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hall, Mike
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hanson, David
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mowlam, Marjorie


Heppell, John
Mudie, George


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mullin, Chris


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Paul


Hodge, Margaret
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hoey, Kate
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Hara, Edward


Home Robertson, John
Olner, Bill


Hood, Jimmy
O'Neill, Martin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Parry, Robert


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Pearson, Ian


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Pendry, Tom


Hoyle, Doug
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Illsley, Eric
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Ingram, Adam
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jamieson, David
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Greville
Raynsford, Nick


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rendel, David


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'tryN W)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jowell, Tessa
Rogers, Allan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, Jeff


Keen, Alan
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Salmond, Alex


Khabra, Piara S
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kilfoyle, Peter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Short, Clare


Lewis, Terry
Skinner, Dennis


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spellar, John


McAllion, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McCartney, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum
Stevenson, George


McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


Mackinlay, Andrew
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McLeish, Henry
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


MacShane, Denis
Timms, Stephen


McWilliam, John
Tipping, Paddy


Madden, Max
Touhig, Don


Maddock, Diana
Trickett, Jon


Mahon, Alice
Turner, Dennis


Mandelson, Peter
Vaz, Keith


Marek, Dr John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walley, Joan


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Wareing, Robert N






Watson, Mike
Wise, Audrey


Welsh, Andrew
Wray, Jimmy


Wicks, Malcolm
Wright, Dr Tony


Wigley, Dafydd
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Mr. Peter Main and


Winnick, David
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Employment Rights (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the draft Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
I propose to deal with these two closely interrelated orders as a single entity. They are primarily a consolidation of existing Northern Ireland legislation on individual employment rights and industrial tribunals, one order providing the system whereby an individual can seek to remedy the infringement of a right as set out in the other.
As hon. Members will appreciate, Northern Ireland has its own separate legal and administrative framework of industrial relations legislation, but has generally followed the corresponding law in Great Britain. Government policy remains one of parity in this area, unless there are compelling local reasons for a departure; thus the employment rights in both jurisdictions are the same, as are the provisions for the industrial tribunal system. This part of Great Britain legislation was recently consolidated in the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 and the Employment Rights Act 1996. The two orders consolidate the equivalent provisions for Northern Ireland by re-enacting existing legislation in two orders, thus replacing eight much-amended enactments dating back to 1965.
The opportunity has been taken, however, to insert a minor but necessary new provision in article 14 paragraphs (7) to (9) of the employment rights order. It makes special provision for those whose professional training of necessity requires successive employment with different health service employers. Without the provision, the move between employers would constitute a break in the continuity of employment; with the provision, during training for a profession, a move from one health service employer to another will not break the continuity of employment in the calculation of a period of continuous employment. That brings the Northern Ireland position into line with that in Great Britain.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, with his usual courtesy. Is he in a position to refute the allegation that cases involving charges of sexual harassment take longer to reach industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland than other cases?

Mr. Moss: I am not in a position to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but I will look into it and write to him.
The orders closely follow the format and terminology of the equivalent Great Britain consolidation Acts, but there are differences in content between the Northern Ireland and Great Britain enactments. As I shall explain, however, the difference in content does not mean a difference in law.
I shall deal first with the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order. The order re-enacts the existing Northern Ireland provisions for the establishment and procedures of


industrial tribunals. There are no new provisions, and the current Northern Ireland provisions are on all fours with arrangements for Great Britain industrial tribunals. There is, however, no equivalent system in Northern Ireland of the employment appeal tribunal. An appeal relating to a decision by a Northern Ireland industrial tribunal on a point of law is by way of a case stated to the Court of Appeal.
Of those who responded to the Department's consultation paper on the Northern Ireland review of the industrial tribunals, several raised the question of the introduction of a Northern Ireland system for appeal against an industrial tribunal decision. The outcome of the review is being considered, but considerable work is still needed, and further consultation will be necessary before a decision can be made. In any case, the order is not a suitable vehicle for such change. It is, after all, principally intended to consolidate, not introduce, a fundamental departure from the present provisions.
Hon. Members will have noted a considerable difference in the content of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order and the Act relating to Great Britain. The main differences result from Northern Ireland's not having legislative provision for Sunday trading or Sunday betting, and the treatment in Northern Ireland of individual rights associated with trade union legislation.
In Northern Ireland, unlike in England and Wales, there is no development of law on Sunday trading or betting and the order does not need to make corresponding provision for those special and important employment protection rights that were introduced for shop workers and betting office workers. Another difference arises from the fact that Northern Ireland legislation has traditionally regarded as individual employment rights those rights that have been provided for people by trade union legislation. They include access to employment regardless of trade union membership; actions short of dismissal on grounds related to trade union membership or detriment in relation to trade union duties; and procedures for handling redundancies and remedies via the industrial tribunals in respect of such rights. In Great Britain those rights are in trade union law.
I hope that the consolidation and simplification of this legislation will be appreciated by all concerned and I commend the orders to the House.

Sir James Molyneaux: As the Minister has said, happily, we are discussing the orders against a background of excellent industrial relations in Northern Ireland—a fact which, dare I say it, gives us an advantage over the rest of the United Kingdom because it is a permanent feature of the Northern Ireland landscape. To a great extent, that is due to the much maligned former Stormont Government and Parliament, which was always very cautious about industrial relations legislation being processed through Westminster.
At first, it was not always recognised that the Westminster Parliament was sovereign, and that led us into various difficulties which we need not pursue tonight. Admittedly, that made life rather exciting for me in the early 1970s when I was in receipt of the Whip of a Conservative Government who at that time were engaged

in steamrollering through the somewhat marathon-like Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, which finally had to be guillotined after we had sat up night after night and participated in as many as two dozen Divisions through the night.
At that time I supported the Government in the Lobby, sometimes in all those Divisions. However, when I returned home at the weekend to Stormont influences, my colleagues in that subordinate Parliament would have none of it. Even when direct rule was imposed—and let us remember on this of all days that it was imposed in 1972 with the object of ending the violence—trade union affairs did not excite passions as they unfortunately continue to do on this island.
Both orders contain many references to tribunals. By and large they and those who man them—perhaps I should say person them—serve us very well. I pay tribute to all those who are involved in the tribunal machinery, but I wish that the same could be said of all commissions because those bodies leave much to be desired. Some commissioners simply do not belong to this planet. As some of them have sat there too long for all the good that they have done and as commissioning has become something of a growth industry in Northern Ireland, there is a need for a root and branch review of both the personnel and the proceedings of some commissions.
Both sides of industry are burdened by restrictions and exorbitant costs to an extent that Parliament never really intended. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office will address that point seriously and urgently and that they will free employers and employees from the intolerable burdens that are imposed nowadays by a very special breed of fat cats.

Mr. Jim Dowd: As the Minister has said and as the Opposition recognise, the primary purpose of the measures is to consolidate an almost bewildering array of employment-related issues into a more comprehensible form, as has already been done in relation to Great Britain measures. The sheer volume of them, however, merits some consideration, albeit brief, on the Floor of the House, although it is self-evidently sensible to clarify the legal framework whenever possible. As the proposals generally translate the law in Northern Ireland as currently defined into two orders, we have no objection to them. Even so, although the resulting codes may be simpler to understand, it would be a substantial over-statement to describe either as simple.
Equally, this is not to say that the present legislation is either adequate or that the machinery for its implementation is working perfectly—I suspect that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) may have been making an oblique reference to that—or even well in all cases. As the Minister averred, one of the principal differences in Northern Ireland legislation from that in the rest of the United Kingdom is the absence of the employment appeals tribunal system, which has become an important part of industrial relations practice over here. The most significant problem facing industrial tribunals of all sorts, however, is the substantial delays in having cases listed, let alone decided.
For a system that was originally devised to be speedy and informal, it is obvious that it has become hopelessly overloaded. In the past eight years, the number of cases


coming before industrial tribunals has risen by about 90 per cent. and verdicts of unfair dismissal have increased by well over 50 per cent. in less than 10 years.
The problem is worse than those figures suggest because access to industrial tribunals is effectively denied to many people by the lack of legal aid in such cases, which means that only people with the means or the support of their union can bring matters before tribunals in any case. When it is realised that citizens advice bureaux dealt with some 670,000 employment-related cases throughout the UK in 1994–95, the scale of the problem becomes ever more apparent.
The Minister mentioned the disparity on Sunday trading. I shall pursue him slightly on that matter and I speak as an enthusiastic supporter of the changes effected in Great Britain. The draft order, which would extend those changes to Northern Ireland, has been around for some considerable time, so could he say whether his consultations have revealed that they should be proceeded with in an identical form in Northern Ireland?
I am thinking of what experience has shown in England and Wales to be the highly anomalous and widely resented differentiation of Easter Sunday. Christmas day is included in the same power, but it falls far less frequently on a Sunday, although I am readily aware that, in Northern Ireland, more so than in any other part of the UK, when dealing with matters that carry even the slightest religious overtone, one must tread with utmost caution. None the less, when, in any event, does the Minister expect the measure to be brought forward?
I have read elsewhere that the Minister has concluded that he has no plans to extend the regulations on Sunday betting. I have a degree of sympathy with his conclusion because, in the circumstances, the combination of the religious connotations that I have mentioned with gambling is probably too volatile a mixture.
The area in which the orders are most deficient lies in a missed opportunity to improve on the rights of people at work. Although. as I mentioned, the orders are almost exclusively a consolidation of existing regulations, that is not the complete picture. The Minister referred to article 14, paragraphs (7) to (9), which contain a wholly new provision for safeguarding the continuity of employment for medical professionals. We welcome that without reservation as both straightforward and necessary. That concedes the point, however, that the orders could, had the will existed, been used to introduce other elements that would have extended rights of redress for working people in Northern Ireland. In particular, those could have included steps to encourage dispute resolution by extending the ability of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to assist in the early stages of an impending dispute.
The other key area in which the measures are inadequate, although in this they are at least comparable with the position in the rest of the UK, is in relation to legal rights for home workers—or rather the complete absence of them. Home workers are essential to the economy, yet they remain the least protected workers in the work force. Many are forced to register as self-employed, making them ineligible for rights such as sick, redundancy or maternity pay, pension rights, or rights against unfair dismissal. Only one in five receives a written contract of employment, one in three an itemised pay slip and just one in 20, sick pay, redundancy notices

or pay, or maternity entitlement. Yet home workers comprise at least 1 million of the United Kingdom's work force. The lack of protection that they enjoy is scandalous and compounds what I have already described as the missed opportunity of these measures.
Notwithstanding those glaring omissions, the broad thrust of the orders is to be welcomed and we do welcome them. Anything that serves to make the law easier to understand for people other than lawyers is a highly desirable advance.

Mr. Moss: I welcome the opportunity to respond to the main points made by hon. Members in the debate—of which there were not many. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) mentioned "fat cat commissioners". I am told that one person who fills the post operates with a fairly modest budget and is the Northern Ireland equivalent of the Great Britain commissioner, so the fat cats in Northern Ireland are the same as those here, presumably.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) asked about delays. For a routine case, the average length of time from registration of a complaint to an offer of a first listing date for a hearing is between 15 and 20 weeks. In equal pay and sex discrimination cases, however, the delay is somewhat longer—that answers the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and I need not write to him now. There was a backlog of about 8,631 cases, if one includes equal pay and sex discrimination cases, as of 6 May 1996, but about 70 to 80 per cent. of those were multiple cases. In other words, the outcome of many cases depends on one that is taken forward.
On why we do not have a local employment appeal tribunal in Northern Ireland, the present arrangements whereby Northern Ireland appeals go straight to the Court of Appeal work satisfactorily without any undue delay. The case load is about 10 cases per annum only, which raises the question whether it would be cost-effective or even necessary to set up a new, specialist appeals body in Northern Ireland.
It is most important to remember that this exercise is one of consolidation—a re-enactment of existing provisions and not an opportunity to change the legislation. Without this exercise, the extreme difficulties of understanding legislation that is some 30 years old and which has been successively amended by some seven pieces of primary legislation dealing with employment rights and 28 other amending enactments, would persist. Those difficulties are not just in relation to the legal profession and industrial tribunals, but for trade unions, employees and employers, all of whom are entitled to accessible legislation, especially as it is their rights that are dealt with in that legislation.
The orders achieve a desirable objective. For the first time since 1965, the employment rights of Northern Ireland individuals are ordered and set out in a single enactment. They are in the form and terminology of the equivalent Great Britain provisions. The consolidation has been keenly awaited by the wide spectrum of those who work in this field

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.

Resolved,

That the draft Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Mr. Moss.]

DAMAGES BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills.)

DAMAGES BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Damages Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure attributable to the Act incurred by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Wells.]

Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet in Westminster on Tuesday 16th July to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 94G(2), notice of the subject may be given not later than the rising of the House on Tuesday 9th July.—[Mr. Wells.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I think that motions 7 and 8 may conveniently be taken together.

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Wednesday 10th July, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Members' Pay and Allowances and to the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1996 not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion, such Questions including the Questions on any Amendments to any of the said Motions which she may have selected, which may then be moved; and the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Monday 15th July, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Gummer relating to Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Functions) not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Wood.]

Rectory School, Hampton

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Toby Jessel: Nothing is more important than the education, the preparation for life and the protection and safety of children. Currently 890 children, mostly from my constituency, are at Rectory school, Hampton. In September, there will be 950 pupils. For the first time ever in its 60 years, it is full at the point of entry for 11-year-olds, and has had to turn some children away. That results from its growing reputation and its improving results under its outstanding head teacher, Mrs. Alessandra Wilson. She is greatly respected in Hampton and in Hampton Hill, and among her professional colleagues.
The staff at Rectory are excellent, as is the governing body. At the end of 1994, an Office for Standards in Education report stated:
Rectory School has a safe and caring environment, with a strong positive ethos. There are good relationships between staff and pupils and the community … It benefits from the clear and positive leadership of the Headteacher, and the high commitment of staff … The percentage of pupils gaining 5+ A-G grades has significantly improved from 32 per cent. in summer 1992 to 50 per cent. in summer 1994 … Overall the behaviour of pupils is good both in classes and around the school, although on occasion it can be noisy … There is a developing programme of moral, social and cultural education".
A school like Rectory should be praised and supported. Its success depends on the authority and leadership of the head teacher, the teachers and the governors. That should not be undermined by anyone, least of all by the local education authority. Yet that is just what has happened as a result of a soft and woolly-minded policy of leniency towards drug offences on the part of the local education authority, the Liberal Democrat-controlled Richmond upon Thames borough council. At one fell swoop, it has delivered a body blow to the authority of the head and the governor, flouted the professional opinion of the teaching staff, and ridden roughshod over the legitimate anxieties of parents.
Three years ago, the governors of Rectory School, to their credit, laid down a strong policy against the possession of drugs. The school curriculum states:
Governors have decided that if any pupil were to be found in school in possession of an illegal substance or drug, he or she would be permanently excluded"—
that is, expelled.
A code of conduct, called "Rectory School Expectations", is sent to every child in the school every September. It states:
Governors have decided that if any pupil were to be found in school in possession of an illegal substance or drug, then he or she would be permanently excluded.
That is clearly understood by all pupils and parents. It is a tough but fair policy, which is backed by parents and staff in the interests of the 900 pupils taken as a whole.
Drugs such as cannabis can become an addictive habit. In the long run, according to the "Oxford Textbook of Medicine", cannabis can cause lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema. It can damage reproductive capacity, cause psychiatric damage and induce personality change. It is a

slow poison that can begin to rot body, mind and spirit. That is why the parents want the school to be a haven against drugs, not to be tolerant of them.
The policy at Rectory school has worked better than in many other schools. For three years there were no drug episodes; exceptionally, there was just one recent incident. Four months ago, three boys were caught red handed in the possession of cannabis. After careful consideration, the head decided that there were extenuating circumstances for one of the boys, but not for the other two, whom she decided to exclude.
The parents of one boy appealed to the governors, who upheld the head's decision. There was then an appeal to a sub-committee of the governors, chaired by the Rev. Brian Leathard, the much-respected vicar of Hampton Hill. The sub-committee considered the appeal most carefully and upheld the decision of the governors, taken as a whole.
Next, the parents of the same boy appealed to Richmond upon Thames borough council, to whom the parents of the second boy had directly appealed. A panel of three councillors—Carthew, Morgan and Gold—advised by two council officers, reversed the governors' decision, and decided to reinstate the two boys who had been excluded from Rectory school. The Rectory school governors then appealed to an independent panel, who were appointed and briefed by Richmond upon Thames borough council. The independent panel also decided to support the councillors' decision and to reinstate the two boys.
At the beginning of last month, three teacher governors of the school wrote to me, and sent me a letter signed by 71 of the staff—only one had refused to sign. They said that they had written to the borough's director of education about their
extreme concern over the reinstatement by the local education authority of the two pupils who were permanently excluded from this school for being in possession of cannabis on school premises on 4 March 1996
The letter signed by 71 staff members of the school continued:
The Borough's decision will in our view, cause us extreme difficulty in managing pupils, particularly in Year 10, who will inevitably seek to take advantage of this new situation. They will know that if they bring illegal substances into school, the final sanction can be removed … We feel disastrously let down by the local education authority"—
Richmond upon Thames borough council—
in this matter … the decision appears to challenge the whole concept of LMS"—
local management of schools.
One parent wrote to me to voice what he has called his
outrage taken at the action by the LEA".
Another parent, a mother with two sons—one recently achieved excellent GCSE results at Rectory school, and the other is about to begin at Rectory school this September—wrote to say:
I was horrified that the LEA overturned the punishment, instead of supporting the school's very clear and sensible policy on the control of drug abuse".
On receiving the letters, I asked instantly to see Mrs. Wilson, and saw her the same day. I then asked to see representatives of the parents and governors. Later, I had some informal conversations with members of Richmond upon Thames council.
Following the council's decision to reinstate the two boys, the central question must be, "What message does it give to the other 900 children?" Does that decision say, "Your head teacher was wrong. The school governors were wrong. Cannabis is not so dangerous for teenagers after all. Richmond upon Thames borough council says so and it knows best"? Is that the message of the reinstatement?
Children and young people not only have a strong sense of justice and fairness; they also need and want firm guidance. But, as a result of Richmond borough council's decision, they are not getting that. The children are now confused: they do not know which rules or laws can be breached and which cannot. If cannabis is condoned, why not Ecstasy or knives? How will local primary schools and their staff and parents react? Will they want to use Rectory school in 1997 as much as they chose to do in 1995 and the early part of 1996?
The governors of Rectory school feel betrayed by the borough council. Rectory happens to be next to two large independent day schools. Some years ago, there was a drug offence in one of those. The headmaster's decision to expel was endorsed by his governors; and that was that. There could be no further appeal. Are the governors of Rectory school, Hampton, to be treated by Richmond borough council as less responsible people than the governors of neighbouring independent schools?
The authority of the governors and the head of Rectory school should not have been undermined by Richmond borough council unless there were absolutely compelling grounds to do so. No such compelling grounds exist. The school rule that drugs entail exclusion could and should have been given great weight, as one of the main factors, by the appeal bodies.
The borough council now seeks to invoke Department for Education circulars 10/94 and 4/95 to imply that the two boys ought not to have been excluded. I have studied these two circulars closely and can see nothing in them to prevent Richmond council from having supported the decision of Rectory school. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to clarify the position on this.
It seems to me that Richmond council has not acted illegally, but it has acted unwisely and wrongly in the way that its appeal panels were set up and advised. The three councillors should have been advised by their officers to give much more weight to the well-being of the school and the 900 children as a whole. As long as there is no injustice, sometimes an example has to be made.
I am equally uneasy about the appointment and briefing given to the so-called "independent" panel of three ladies, Mrs. Brown, Mrs. Scotney and Mrs. Viscardi. They are all governors of primary schools, as far as I know without experience in the government of comprehensive schools. The appeal to that panel was by the school against the council, who were thus the two parties to the appeal. Yet the independent panel allowed the children of the parents to appear. This turned the hearing into a three-sided hearing between the school, the parents and the council, which it was not supposed to be.
The parents were accompanied by a solicitor, who spoke for them. The school representatives, the head, Mrs. Alessandra Wilson, and the Rev. Brian Leathard

were notified neither that the parents were going to be there nor that they would be legally represented. Therefore, the school representatives did not bring a solicitor. This unbalanced the hearing by the independent panel.
The borough council officer advising the independent panel treated Mrs. Wilson and Mr. Leathard, who are greatly respected pillars of society locally in the Hamptons, in a cavalier manner, telling them to shut up or leave the room.
I do not blame the members of the independent panel, so much as those who selected them and briefed them. Ultimately, the responsibility for these arrangements rests not so much with the chief executive of the council as with the leader of the council, Mr. Williams, the chairman of the education committee, Mr. Cornwell, who is also a governor of Rectory school, and the deputy leader of the council, Mrs. Alexander, who is also the chairman of the governors of Rectory school. It is for them and the committees they chair, in the end, to give policy to their officers on how this sort of situation is to be handled.
The two boys in question are now reinstated at Rectory, and are settling back. No one is suggesting that they should be removed at this stage. However, some serious damage has been done. Parents are asking, "How can the authority of the head and the governors now be restored?"
We have changed the law of the land to give parents more power, and it is for the parents to decide how to use it. Parents could easily hold a general meeting and say that they do not wish the governors of the school to change their rules against drugs. It might be that they would wish "to fire a warning shot across the bows" of the borough council. They could warn it that, if there is any such reinstatement decision by Richmond council ever again, then parents might consider a further meeting to discuss a petition of 20 per cent. of the parents, which could trigger a referendum of all the parents on whether or not the school should remove itself from borough council control.
Becoming grant-maintained would result in substantial additional finance for the school, of between £200,000 and £300,000 a year, since the school would no longer have to carry any local council overheads. The governors could also trigger a parents' referendum, but an alternative procedure to obtain one is the petition by 20 per cent. of the parents.
I am not going to suggest that a referendum of parents should be triggered now, but it is open to the parents to warn the borough council that one could take place in the future. Such a warning would deliver to Richmond council a well deserved shock. The mere threat of such a referendum from a meeting of parents would probably deter the council from making such a foolish and dangerous decision again. It would also serve to restore the authority of the head and governors of Rectory school, which is what the parents want—for the sake, as I said at the outset, of the education, the safety and the welfare of all the children in the school.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): I start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for raising this important issue on the Adjournment, and for the way he has done so.


Exclusions from school are self-evidently a sensitive and emotive issue; discussion of drugs in schools is equally sensitive and emotive. Combining the two can be a recipe for a great deal more heat than light. My hon. Friend has avoided that; I am grateful to him for the clear way in which he has set out the background to the case in question, and for his measured comments on the issues at the focus of his and his constituents' concern.
There is no dispute about the facts. Rectory school, Hampton, has a well publicised and tough line on drugs in school, which I commend. Following an incident in March, the head teacher permanently excluded two pupils in pursuance of that policy. These exclusions were upheld by the school's governing body, but Richmond local education authority took a different view and ordered that the two boys be reinstated. The governors exercised their right to go to an independent appeal committee but they were not successful in reimposing the exclusions.
So much for the background. I do not propose to disinter it in any more detail. My hon. Friend said that the LEA acted legally but believes that it acted unwisely. I understand that the school takes the same view. Neither wants to unpick what has been decided about the two boys, but both are rightly concerned about the general issues raised, on which I intend to focus.
Before doing so, I want to make it clear that I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's line of argument. I can well understand the difficulties that a school faces when excluded pupils are reinstated. Sometimes, though not always, there are difficulties with the pupils directly involved. Very often there are concerns that the school's authority may be undermined and that it will be harder to maintain good discipline as a result. When there are reinstatements in cases involving drugs, there are very real worries that firm action being taken to combat this menace among young people will be jeopardised.
It is a very difficult situation, and I have every sympathy with the head teacher and school concerned, especially as in this case they seem to have acted quite properly throughout.
There is general support, including from the Opposition, for the Government's "Tackling Drugs Together" strategy. As part of that, my Department issued guidance to all schools in England in May last year on drug prevention in schools. Circular 4/95, as it is known, included general advice on school discipline in respect of drugs. I emphasise that that was general advice and clearly labelled as such. It must be for the governors of each school to establish a more detailed policy in the light of local circumstances, and for head teachers to apply those policies appropriately when reacting to particular incidents.
We believe, as circular 4/95 makes clear, that all schools should include a specific reference to drugs in their policy statements about pupil behaviour, and that it should set out clearly the disciplinary measures likely to be taken in response to drug-related incidents. In establishing those policies, schools will want to consider a repertoire of responses, including both sanctions and counselling, and take account of how punishment prescribed by the school links with law enforcement by the police.
How that general guidance is converted into detailed policies for schools will depend on local circumstances. Some schools, with the support of parents and the local

community, will be able to adopt firmer policies than others. Some schools have more of a problem to tackle than others and will have to pitch their disciplinary responses accordingly. But whatever the detail, it is important that pupils and parents are left in no doubt about the school's intentions regarding drugs.
As my hon. Friend said, Rectory school's policy is exemplary in that respect. After wide local consultation and with overwhelming support from parents and the local community, the governors declared that the school should be a drug-free zone. It made it clear that permanent exclusion would be the normal response for any pupil found in possession of, or using, an illegal substance on the school premises. Parents and pupils are reminded of that in the school's code of conduct, which is re-issued to them annually.
I understand that at no point has Richmond LEA raised objections to, or doubts about, Rectory school's policy. It did so neither in the initial consultations, nor when the policy was re-issued in each of the following three years. Indeed. I am told that there have been a number of indications of the LEA's support for the Rectory governors' strong stance.
My hon. Friend said that, in the aftermath of the recent incident, it was suggested locally that Rectory school's policy was in conflict with my Department's guidance. That is not the case, and I underline that tonight. Our guidance states, in terms, that the fact that behaviour could constitute a criminal offence need not of itself lead automatically to exclusion. But the emphasis is on the word "automatically". Exclusion has serious consequences for pupils and it is important that all the circumstances of an incident are considered before judgments are made.
All the facts show that Rectory school considers apparent breaches of its drugs policy carefully and in detail. It has a high threshold for mitigating circumstances, but that is not an impossible hurdle. There is clearly no crude automaticity about exclusion decisions. Indeed, my hon. Friend has confirmed that a third pupil was involved peripherally in the incident at the centre to which my hon. Friend has drawn the House's attention. After consideration of all the circumstances, the head teacher decided that a fixed-term rather than permanent exclusion would be appropriate in that case.
Let me deal now with some of the general issues about exclusions. This serious sanction can have a significant effect on a pupil's school career. It should and must be a last resort. For that reason, the power to exclude rests solely with head teachers. It cannot be delegated. For the same reason, exclusion decisions, once taken, are subject to several levels of review. In the first instance, a school's governing body, or its discipline committee if it has one, can review the case and decide to reinstate the pupil if that seems appropriate. Secondly, for county schools such as Rectory, the LEA must consider all permanent exclusions and any representations from the parents concerned. It, too, can decide on reinstatement. That possibility does not, however, apply to grant-maintained schools—a point which Rectory school governors might wish to note, not least in connection with my hon. Friend's reference to a possible petition to that effect.
Finally, for all schools, representations can be made to an independent appeals committee. Such representations can be made by the parents of an excluded pupil or, in a


case where the LEA has directed reinstatement of an excluded pupil, by the governors of the school concerned. Those committees are constituted to review exclusion cases impartially. They must include a majority of members independent of the school and LEA involved, and at least one lay member with no professional involvement in education. They operate in accordance with a statutory framework laid down by the Education Act 1986 and they are guided by a code of practice promulgated jointly by the local authority associations and the council on tribunals. They look afresh at all aspects of each case and reach conclusions in the light of the information presented to them, including representations from the parties involved.
The committees are independent and it is important that they are seen to operate as such. Of course, it is also important that the process is seen to be fair by each of the parties involved—although, necessarily, at least one of them will be disappointed by the committee's conclusions. The conclusions, whatever they may be, are final and binding on all parties—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no power in law to overturn them.
Our latest figures show that these exclusion appeal committees were convened some 1,200 times in the 1994–95 school year, which represents a little over 10 per cent. of all permanent exclusion cases. In about 15 per cent. of the appeals brought by parents, the excluded pupil was reinstated. Of the 160 appeals brought by governing bodies, almost half led to LEA reinstatement decisions being overturned. Therefore, the outcome is by no means a foregone conclusion.
I understand that Rectory school felt that the LEA and, in turn, the appeal committee focused overmuch on the situation of the two pupils who had been excluded. It believes that insufficient attention was given to the position of the school and, in particular, to the difficulties that reinstatement would cause for the school in maintaining its discipline policy generally and in regard to its strong line on drugs. That mirrors complaints that we have heard in a number of other high profile exclusion cases in recent months.
Clearly, appeal committees have a difficult job. They must look at all the relevant facts—at whether the excluded pupil was responsible for the alleged misdemeanour and, if so, whether permanent exclusion is the appropriate response in his or her case. However, consideration of the last question need not focus on the situation of the excluded pupil alone—it may be important to take into account the interests of other pupils at the

school. That is most obviously the case where an excluded pupil has assaulted others or has been persistently disruptive in class. However, it also applies where there are considerations about sustaining a school's authority to maintain good discipline and the sort of orderly environment necessary for effective learning.
The present legislation places no constraints on the freedom of appeal committees to take full account of the wider interests of the school, but it does not require them to do so. Recently, we have been considering whether amending legislation to that effect would be appropriate. My hon. Friend's representations certainly reinforce the arguments for that, and I promise him that we will look sympathetically at this when we consider legislative options for the next Session.
Such legislation could help in difficult cases where the educational interests of an excluded pupil need to be balanced against the interests of his or her peers. However, it would not remove the important rights of appeal. The serious consequences of permanent exclusion mean that, on grounds of natural justice if no other, parents and pupils must continue to have a right to an independent hearing.
Finally, I refer to the present situation at Rectory school. I agree with my hon. Friend about the difficult situation in which the head teacher and the governors find themselves, and I have a great deal of sympathy for them. They excluded pupils in line with a policy on drugs that had been drawn up with widespread local support. Richmond LEA had never raised questions about that policy, yet it reinstated the two pupils, at least partly, on the ground that the policy was too harsh. It is not at all surprising that the head and the governors feel very badly let down.

Mr. Jessel: And the parents.

Mr. Squire: Yes, I accept that. From what my hon. Friend has said about the qualities of the school and its head, I am sure that the school will come out of this difficult situation with honour. It is clear that it continues to enjoy strong support from parents. Indeed, letters received by the Department refer to widespread anger at the LEA's decision. Given that support, I trust that the school will be able to sustain its commendably strong line on drugs, but it will have to work harder at it and will not thank the LEA for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.